Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth (24 page)

Clearly, the memory of Mary’s Welsh household continued to linger, even to the time of her accession in 1553: the vice-regal council continued to govern Wales in her name until 1536, she retained the estates of Bromfield, Yale, and Chirkland—part of the landed endowment traditionally granted to male Princes of Wales—until 1529, and at least one of her former attendants Anne Hussey (who was also, significantly, wife to one of the noble figureheads of the “Pilgrimage of Grace”) could not break the habit of reverence toward Mary. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that the rebels in the 1536 “Pilgrimage of Grace” regarded Mary as a credible successor to the throne. Traditionally, the demand by the rebels for Mary’s restoration to the succession has been viewed as part of a package of demands to restore the socioeconomic-religious and political apparatus that was in place before Henry VIII’s and the Reformation Parliament’s break with the Roman Catholic Church.
⁶³

I suggest here that a supplementary consideration may have played a role in this particular demand. As the daughter of the discarded queen Catherine of Aragon, Mary was, in 1536, undoubtedly a nostalgic symbol of the old order. But there is, perhaps, a case to be made for taking Robert Aske at his word when he stated, under interrogation, that he believed that Mary’s restoration to the succession was the best means to prevent an “alien” (Scottish) succession to the crown after Henry VIII’s death. Rather than indulging in nostalgic wishful thinking, Aske may have been making a practical assessment of the political situation as it existed in the autumn and winter of 1536. Mary had been groomed for sovereign rule as a de facto Prince(ss) of Wales. Her household had functioned as a court characterized by an erudite, humanist, literary culture of reverence toward herself as evidenced by Duwes’ French manual, the poem by Newman, and the crown Instructions for her household staff. These resonances of this household and its reverential culture centered on Mary persisted long after she left the marches as evidenced by Anne Hussey’s arrest, the continued payment of wages to her Welsh household staff until 1532, and William Forrest’s 1553 poem. Aske may have been shrewdly gambling that no foreign national, even an adult male Scottish king, could command more loyalty within the English polity than the “redolent” Mary, whether officially demoted or not. Jane Grey and the duke of Northumberland may have done well to remember in 1553 what Aske and the “Pilgrimage” rebels knew in 1536— that when it came to a choice amongst various candidates for the throne, be they adult male kings (James V) or the designated heirs of dead kings (Grey), the English polity would support the rights of the person who had already served a political apprenticeship in the Welsh Marches and so was ready to assume the sovereign reins of power: Mary Tudor, the redolent “sovereign princess.”

When Mary acceded to the throne in 1553, she was already an experienced ruler. She had recently been overlord to the tenants and clients associated with the Howard affinity in East Anglia. It was this affinity that had served as her core support in her successful campaign to repel the challenge posed by Jane Grey and John Dudley, duke of Northumberland. Like Mary, Elizabeth too had acted, before her accession, as overlord to her tenants and clients associated with her landed patrimony. Unlike Mary, Elizabeth had never presided over a vice-regal court. This may, perhaps, account for their different governing styles, aside obviously from personality differences and the different particulars of their historical situations as rulers. Mary was used to commanding her household officers as a “great princess” and so it appears she expected absolute obedience from her privy councilors and subjects. By contrast, it was all Elizabeth could do as a teenager from 1547 to 1551 to furnish her household with things that Mary had turned down, secure legal title to her primary residence (Hatfield), and maintain her borders and household with what, she considered, her inadequate landed revenues.
⁶⁴
When she came to the throne in 1558, Elizabeth was not nearly as regal and autocratic a figure as Mary had been and this may have resulted in a greater willingness to take advice and consult her subjects on issues such as her marriage. This argument cannot be pushed too far since there were many variables involved, but one point that should be considered when trying to comprehend the difference between England’s first two crowned female monarchs is the contrast between their pre-accession careers as heads of household: Elizabeth was an underfunded and underaged landowner overshadowed until November 17, 1558 by her half-sister Mary who had spent most of her life as a sovereign princess.

Notes

1. For large-scale studies that focus on the rebellion, see M. Bush, 
   The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of October 1536
    (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996) and R. W. Hoyle, 
   The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s
    (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
   
2. M. Bateson, “Aske’s Examination,” 
   EHR
    5 (1890): 550–73.
   
3. The Second Act of Succession, 28 Hen. VIII c.7; Bateson, “Aske...,” 564.
   
4. Bateson, “Aske...,” 563–4.
   
5. For an explicit identification of Mary’s legitimacy as a preventative measure against a Scottish succession, see item 3 in Pontefract Articles of the “Pilgrimage of Grace” in A. Fletcher, 
   Tudor Rebellions
    (London: Longman, 1973), 128. For one of many attempts to present the infant Elizabeth as a marriage prospect to European royal houses, all such marriage negotiations failed, 
   LP
   , VII: 191.
   
6. Bateson, “Aske...,” 564.
   
7. For fuller consideration of the historical situation prompting Henry to send Mary to the Welsh Marches, see Jeri L. McIntosh, 
   From Heads
   of Household to Heads of State
   ...(New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 30–1, also available online via the Gutenberg-e website at: http:// www.gutenberg-e.org/mcintosh/chapter1.html#s1.4.
   
8. LP
   , IV.i: 621, 1391.
   
9. S. J. Gunn, “The Regime of Charles, Duke of Suffolk, in North Wales and the Reform of the Welsh Government, 1509–1525,” 
   The Welsh History
   Review
   , 12 (1985): 461–95 and R. A. Griffiths, 
   Sir Rhys ap Thomas and his
   Family: A Study in the Wars of the Roses and Early Tudor Politics
    (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1993).
   
10. BL Cotton Vitellius, C.i., fols. 7v–8r.
    
11. BL Royal 14 B. XIX, 5324, unbound manuscript, no folio numbers.
    
12. LP
    , III, 337; McIntosh, 
    From Heads of Household to Heads of State
    ..., 18–37
    
13. BL Cotton Vitellius C.i, fols. 7r–18v (mss misnumbered on fol. 17) [old numbering: fols.23r–35r].
    
14. BL Cleopatra, E. VI, fols. 325r–328r for privy council orders to establish Elizabeth’s household and regulate Mary’s. Insight into the infant Elizabeth’s material existence can be glimpsed in Anne Boleyn’s accounts, see E. W. Ives, 
    Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: The Most Happy
     (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 253–4.
    
15. “The Count of Feria’s Dispatch to Philip II of 14 November 1558,” ed. M. J. Rodríguez-Salgado and S. Adams, 
    Camden Miscellany
    , 28 (Camden Society, 4th series, 29, 1984): 323.
    
16. BL Cotton Vitellius C.i, fol. 7r; for later reference to the council as the “princes[s’] council” see 
    LP
    , V: no. 99.
    
17. BL Cotton Vitellius C.i, fol. 7r; spelling modernized.
    
18. BL Cotton Vitellius C.i, fols. 17r–18r.
    
19. As an example, see Edwardian privy council discussions of Henry VIII’s will and landed assignments. 
    APC,
     II: 43.
    
20. BL Cotton Vitellius C.i, fol. 17r.
    
21. F. Jones, 
    The Princes of Wales and Principality of Wales
     (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1969), 93–7 and T. P. Ellis, 
    The first extent of Bromfield and
    Yale...
    (London: Hon. Society of Cymmodorion, 1924), 4.
    
22. S. Gunn, “The Regime of Charles, duke of Suffolk, in North Wales,” 
    Welsh History
    , 12 (1985): 486.
    
23. S. Adams
    , Leicester and the Court: Essays on Elizabethan Politics
     (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002): 294.
    
24. An example of this was when Elizabeth I granted these estates and/ or castles to Ambrose and Robert Dudley. S. Adams
    , Leicester and the Court,
     295.
    
25. BL Cotton Vitellius, C.i., fol. 7v.
    
26. BL Vespasian, F. XIII, vol. 2, fol. 240r (formerly fol. 134) transcribed with idiosyncratic use of modern spelling in 
    LP
    , IV.i: 1785.
    
27. BL Cotton Vitellius, C.i, fol. 8v.
    
28. BL Cotton Vitellius, C.i, fol. 8v.
    
29. Giles Du Wes, 
    An Introductory for to Learn to Read, to Pronounce, and to Speak French [1532?]
     ed. R. C. Alston, Facsimile (Menston, U.K.: Scolar Press, 1972). In this useful facsimile edition, Alston assigns a highly speculative date of 1532. The 
    Revised Short-Title Catalogue
     assigns a date of 1533. The confusion probably arises from the book containing two sections clearly composed at different times with separate dedications; the first half, dedicated to “Mary of England,” suggests a pre-Boleyn marriage period whereas the second half of the book is dedicated to Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and Princess Elizabeth suggesting a date of 1533 or later [see S4v–T1r]. This internal evidence suggest to me a publication date after Elizabeth’s birth in September 1533 but before Duwes’ death in 1535, hence the 1534 date used here. Hereafter, cited as “Duwes.”.
    
30. Duwes
    ,
     A4.
    
31. Duwes, Dd2r; BL Harleian, 6807, fol. 3v.
    
32. Listed in Mary’s 1525 household (BL Harleian 6807, fol. 3v) but not listed in Mary’s 1533 household, see BL Harleian 6807, fol. 7v.
    
33. See n.13.
    
34. Although 
    The Courtier
     did not appear in an English printed edition until 1561 (tr. Thomas Hoby), there is evidence to suggest that educated people in England were reading it in Italian, see D. Starkey, 
    Reign of Henry VIII
    (London: George Philip, 1985), 33 and, by the same author, “The Court: Castiglione’s Ideal and Tudor Reality; Being a Discussion of Sir Thomas Wyatt’s Satire Addressed to Sir Francis Bryan,” 
    Journal of the Warburg and
    Courtauld Institutes
    , 45 (1982): 232–9.
    
35. Castiglione’s concepts of grace (
    grazia
    ) as a gift from God and the deliberate human cultivation and consequent (seemingly) artless display of it (
    sprezzatura
    ) were subtle distinctions not always appreciated by his contemporary readers. Duwes’ manual concentrates on erudition as the path towards understanding and virtue rather than the ontology of virtue. For extended discussions of Castiglione’s philosophy, see L. V. Ryan, “Book Four of Castiglione’s Courtier: Climax or Afterthought?” 
    Studies in the
    Renaissance
    , 19 (1972):156–79; E. Saccone, “
    Grazia, Sprezzatura, Affettazione
    in 
    The Courtier
    ” in 
    Castiglione: The Ideal and the Real in Renaissance Culture
    , ed. Robert W. Hanning and David Rosand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 45–67; J. Richards, “Assumed Simplicity and the Critique of Nobility: Or, How Castiglione Read Cicero,” 
    RQ,
     54 (2001): 460–86.
    
36. Duwes, T3v.
    
37. For a detailed discussion of the mid-Tudor iteration of this genre, see S. C. Lucas, “
    A Mirror for Magistrates” and the Politics of the English Reformation
    (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2009).
    
38. Duwes, Dd2v.
    
39. For more information on Duwes (who was also a lutenist), see Andrew Ashbee, “Groomed for Service: Musicians in the Privy Chamber at the English Court, c. 1495–1558,” 
    Early Music
    , 25 (1997): 185–97; 188–9.
    
40. Duwes, Ee1v, Bb2r.
    
41. Duwes
    ,
     Bb1v, U3v.
    
42. Identifying who’s who in Duwes is not a straightforward undertaking given that there exist two variant lists of officers for Mary’s household in 1525; one is in BL Cotton Vitellius Ci, fols.7r–18v [formerly 23r–35v] and the other is in BL Harleian 6807, fols. 3r–6r. Furthermore, there is a distinction between the Lord Treasurer of the Household and the Treasurer of the Privy Chamber. BL Cotton Vitellius C. i lists Sir Ralph Egerton only as “Treasurer” and Sydnor as “surveyor” whereas BL Harley 6807 [dated July 17, 1525] lists Sydnor as treasurer of the privy chamber. I managed to confuse Egerton and Sydnor when discussing Duwes’ “treasurer” in my book 
    From Heads of Household to Heads of State
    , 75–6.
    
43. The Privy Purse Expenses of Princess Mary
    , ed. F. Madden (London: William Pickering, 1831), 
    passim
     from BL Royal 17 B.xxviii with divergent folio numbers because the mss was renumbered after Madden consulted it, also Madden leaves out Mary’s totals in her own hand.
    
44. The following description of and all quotations from Mary and Sydnor’s conversation are all from Duwes, Bb2r–v.
    
45. J. L. Vives, 
    A very frutefull and pleasant boke called the Instructio[n] of a Christen woma[n]...
    (2nd edn.) (London, 1529).
    
46. A representative example would be W. Gouge, 
    Of domesticall duties...
    (2
    ^nd
    edn.) (London, 1622).
    
47. John Aylmer, 
    An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste.
    (London, 1559) set forth this argument at length, see C4v, G1r–3r.
    
48. For extended discussion on contemporary views on female sovereignty and marriage, see J. M. Richards, “Mary Tudor as ‘Sole Quene’?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy,” 
    HJ
    , 40 (1997): 895–924. Glyn Redworth argues that Philip was able to exercise considerable political influence in “‘Matters Impertinent to Women’: Male and Female Monarchy under Philip and Mary,” 
    EHR
    , 112 (1997): 597–613.
    
49. Duwes, Aa4v.
    
50. Duwes, Bb1r.
    
51. BL Cotton Vitellius, C.i, fol. 8r.
    
52. Duwes, U3r–v, U4r, Aa2v, and Aa4v.
    
53. BL Add. 11, 814, fols. 26v–29r.
    
54. BL Add. 11, 814, fols. 26v–29r.
    
55. BL Add. 11, 814, fol. 27r.
    
56. BL Add. 11, 814, fol. 27v.
    
57. BL Cotton Otho X, fols. 260r–262v.
    
58. LP
    , V, no. 99; quoted in 
    Tudor Wales
    , ed. T. Herbert and G. E. Jones (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1988), 147.
    
59. BL Stowe 141, fol. 13r; D. M. Loades, 
    Mary Tudor: A Life
     (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 46–7.
    
60. The Privy Purse Expenses of Princess Mary,
     61, 152.
    
61. The Privy Purse Expenses of Princess Mary
    , 61.
    
62. W. Forrest, 
    The History of Grisild the Second: A Narrative, in verse, of the Divorce of Queen Katharine of Aragon
     (1558), ed. W. D. Macray (London, 1875), 86.
    
63. An example of this interpretation is C. S. L. Davies, “The Pilgrimage of Grace Reconsidered,” 
    Past & Present
     41 (December 1968): 54–76; p. 64.
    
64. For discussions of Mary’s larger patrimony and allocation of royal furnishings as well as Elizabeth’s problems retaining Hatfield and her lands, see McIntosh, 
    From Heads of Household to Heads of State
    ..., 51, 120, 126–44.