After Elizabeth's departure, Katherine made an effort to forget what had happened and rebuild her shaken marriage. Thanks to her determination, relations between her and her husband improved, a.s.sisted by the Queen's advancing pregnancy and the shared pleasure of antic.i.p.ating the birth of their child. Early in June, the Admiral's duties called him to court, so Katherine went away to Hanworth for a few days, and while she was there, she felt her child move inside her for the first time. It was a joyful moment, and did much to erase her unhappy memories of the spring. With renewed affection, she wrote to her husband: Sweetheart and loving husband, I gave your little knave your blessing, who like an honest man stirred apace after and before; for Mary Odell [the midwife, who was already in attendance], being abed with me, laid her hand on my belly to feel it stir. It has stirred these three days every morning and evening, so that I trust when you come it will make you some pastime. And thus I end, bidding my sweetheart and loving husband better to fare than myself.

556.

The Admiral replied on 9 June that Katherine's letter had 'revived my spirits'. He was still trying, with little success, to get Somerset to agree to restoring her jewels to her. Hearing that 'my little man doth shake his poll', he trusted that 'If G.o.d should give him a life as long as his father's, he will revenge such wrongs as neither you nor I can at present.' He had spoken to Somerset, he said, and had 'so well handled him' that the Duke was no longer so sure of his ground, and had said that 'At the finishingofthe matter, you shall either have your own again, or else some recompense as ye shall be content withal.' He ended his letter with instructions to Katherine to keep the little knave [i.e. the baby] so lean and gaunt with your good diet and walking that he may be so small that he may creep out of a mouse-hole! And I bid my most dear and well- beloved wife most heartily well to fare. Your Highness' most faithful, loving husband, T. Seymour.

It is obvious from this letter that the Admiral was doing his best to regain the love and respect of his wife, especially now she was about to bear him, he hoped, an heir. And it is obvious from Katherine's letter, too, that she was happy to pretend that all was well between them. An uneasy peace had been achieved. But underneath, her wound was still raw.

Chelsea held too many painful memories, and so the Admiral had decided to take the Queen to Sudeley Castle, where their child would be born. He returned from court on 11 June, and on Wednesday, 13 June they set off for Gloucestershire. When they reached their new home, a letter from John Fowler awaited them, enclosing one from the King. Edward sent his commendations to his stepmother and to the Admiral, and informed them that the d.u.c.h.ess of Somerset had just given birth to 'a fine boy', to be named after the King and after her elder son, born eleven years before, who had died in childhood. This was encouraging news for Katherine, whose own confinement was now not many weeks off.

The Queen soon settled into the peaceful routine of life in the country. Then a letter arrived from Elizabeth, who wrote 'giving thanks for the manifold kindnesses received at your Highness's hand 557.

at my departure' and saying how 'truly I was replete with sorrow to depart from your Highness' and that I weighed it deeply when you said you would warn me of all evilnesses that you should hear of me; for if your Grace had not a good opinion of me, you would not have offered friendship to me that way at all, meaning the contrary.

There was more, in the same appealing and penitential vein, and the letter was signed 'Your Highness's humble daughter, Elizabeth'. It was undoubtedly a plea for forgiveness, and Katherine sensibly realised that Elizabeth had never intended her any real harm; she had lost her head over a handsome man who should have known better. With this in mind, Katherine could not remain angry any longer, and even though she had hurt her wrist, which was so weak that she could hardly hold the pen, she wrote a warm reply, a.s.suring her stepdaughter of her friendship. The Admiral wrote also, at his wife's request.

Elizabeth replied on 31 July, saying Katherine's letter was 'most joyful to me', although she was concerned to hear 'what pain it is to you to write', and would have been happy to receive her 'commendations' in the Admiral's letter. She rejoiced, she said, to learn of Katherine's otherwise excellent health and enjoyment of life in the country, and was grateful to the Admiral for undertaking to let her know from time to time 'how his busy child doth; if I were at his birth, no doubt I would see him beaten, for the trouble he hath put you to!' And with the pa.s.sing on of good wishes for 'a lucky deliverance' from Mrs Ashley and others, Elizabeth ended her letter, 'giving your Highness most humble thanks for your commendations'.

There was no question, of course, of Elizabeth rejoining Katherine's household. Yet the Queen did not lack for company in these final weeks of her pregnancy. Lady Jane Grey was still with her and like a daughter, and many of her old friends and acquaintances made the long journey from London to visit her; in fact, Sudeley Castle quickly became renowned as the second court in the realm because it was so well populated with the n.o.bility and because the Admiral spared no expense in providing hospitality or in maintaining his 558.

wife's royal estate. They had, after all, more than 8,000 a year to live on, a princely sum in those days. Most welcome of all were Katherine's old friends, Sir Robert and Lady Tyrwhitt, and it was to Sir Robert that the Queen mentioned one day, when they were walking in the gardens, and Sir Robert was admiring the scenery and[the castle, that when the King came of age he would ask for the return of Sudeley Castle. Sir Robert was dismayed to learn that the Queen might have to leave her beautiful home, and asked, 'Then will Sudeley Castle be gone from my Lord Admiral?' Katherine smiled, and told him that she had the King's promise that, if he recalled all the lands deeded away by the regency Council he would freely return Sudeley when that time came.

It was now August, and the Queen's child was due within the month. Mostofher visitors tactfully departed, leaving only the Tyrwhitts and a few other faithful friends in attendance. Katherine spent much of her time with Lady Jane Grey, of whom she was very fond, and there had been, of late, a reconciliation with the Lady Mary, whose disapproval of Katherine's remarriage had melted as soon as she heard that her stepmother was to bear a child. Again, the two women had begun to correspond, and in the middle of August William Parr arrived at Sudeley with another letter from Mary, who was going to Norfolk and would not return until Michaelmas, 'at which time, or shortly after, I trust to hear good success of your Grace's great belly, and in the meantime shall desire much to hear of your health.' And with commendations to the Admiral, she signed herself 'Your Highness's humble and a.s.sured loving daughter.'

Katherine was therefore seemingly at peace with the world when, on 30 August 1548, her child was born at Sudeley Castle. It turned out to be no 'little knave', but a daughter, who was afterwards christened Mary, in honour of her stepsister, the Lady Mary. It was a difficult birth, and Katherine was very weak afterwards, although her physicians and the midwife, Mary Odell, were optimistic about her recovery.

The Admiral was naturally disappointed that the child was a girl, but it was not long before he was doting upon the baby, and sending the news of her birth by fast courier to the Protector. Somerset was 559.

right glad to understand by your letters that the Queen, your bedfellow, hath a happy hour, and, escaping all danger, hath made you the father of so pretty a daughter; and although (if it had pleased G.o.d) it would have been both to us and (we suppose) also to you more joy and comfort if it had, this first-born, been a son, yet the escape of the danger, and the prophecy of this to a great sort of happy sons is no small joy and comfort to us, as we are sure it is to you and her Grace also, to whom you shall make again our hearty commendations, with no less congratulation of such good success. From Syon, the 1st of Sept., 1548. Your loving brother, E. Somerset.

Of course, the d.u.c.h.ess of Somerset was delighted that Katherine Parr had borne a daughter; had not she herself presented her husband with a fine son, triumphing where Katherine had failed?

There was no thought of failure, or even of success, in the mind of the Queen by then. Hours after the birth, she was laid low with puerperal fever, that scourge of medieval and Tudor childbeds, and remained delirious for almost a week. With each pa.s.sing day, it became more obvious that she was not going to recover. In her delirium, she spoke of her anguish over her husband's faithlessness and betrayal, which was to trouble her to the end, and which she no longer had the strength or wit to conceal. On 5 September, Lady Tyrwhitt went into the Queen's bedchamber to bid her good morning and see if there was any improvement in her condition. Katherine was half lucid, and asked Lady Tyrwhitt where she had been for so long, saying 'that she did fear such things in herself that she was sure she could not live'. Lady Tyrwhitt replied, with feigned confidence, 'that I saw no likelihood of death in her.' But Katherine was not listening; she was back at Chelsea, reliving the moment when she had found her husband and Elizabeth in an embrace. The Admiral was by the bed, and she grasped his hand, saying, 'My Lady Tyrwhitt, I am not well handled, for those that are about me care not for me, but stand laughing at my grief, and the more good I will to them, the less good they will to me.'

There was shocked silence, then the Admiral hastened to rea.s.sure her, saying, 'Why, sweetheart! I would you no hurt!' To which 560.

Katherine replied, with heavy irony, 'No, my lord, I think so.' Then, as he leaned over her, she whispered, 'But, my lord, you have given me many shrewd taunts.' Lady Tyrwhitt remembered afterwards that she said these words 'with good memory, and very sharply and earnestly, for her mind was sore disquieted'. The Admiral pretended not to hear, and, taking Lady Tyrwhitt aside, asked her what his wife had said; 'I declared plainly to him,' she recalled. He asked if she thought he should lie down on the bed with the Queen 'and pacify her unhappiness with gentle communication'. Lady Tyrwhitt agreed this might be a good thing, whereupon the Admiral lay down and put his arms around his wife, soothing her with words of love, without regard to the presence of her ladies. He had not, however, said more than three or four words when Katherine burst out, 'My lord, I would have given a thousand marks to have had my full talk with [Dr Robert] Huicke [her physician] the first day I was delivered, but I durst not, for displeasing you.' What she actually wanted to discuss with Huicke we shall never know, but Lady Tyrwhitt guessed that it was something of a very personal nature, possibly about the resumption or otherwise of s.e.xual relations after the difficult confinement, and because of this, and her realisation that Katherine's agony of mind was very great, Lady Tyrwhitt tactfully withdrew out of earshot: 'My heart would serve me to hear no more.' The Queen's tirade against the Admiral continued for more than an hour, and was heard by the ladies about her bedside, though they did not leave accounts of it for posterity. Later that day, Katherine's fever subsided, leaving her with no recollection of what she had said. She was very weak, and realised, with her usual common sense, that she was dying, and that it would be best to make her will now, while she was in possession of her senses. Writing materials were brought by her secretary, and the Queen dictated: I, Katherine Parr, etc., lying on my death-bed, sick of body but of good mind and perfect memory and discretion, being persuaded and perceiving the extremity of death to approach me, give all to my married spouse and husband, wishing them to be a thousand times more in value than they are or been.

561The will was then signed by the Queen and witnessed by Dr Huicke and her chaplain, John Parkhurst, who gave her the last rites soon afterwards. We do not know if the Queen asked to see her baby daughter before the end, nor are her last words recorded, nor any details of her death, which occurred the following day, 7 September 1548, between two and three in the morning.

The Admiral was genuinely grieved at her pa.s.sing, and gave orders for her body to be buried in the castle chapel. The corpse was embalmed, dressed in rich clothes, and wrapped in cerecloth, then placed in a lead coffin and left in the Queen's privy chamber until arrangements for the funeral had been completed. Young Jane Grey shed bitter tears over it, not only for the woman who had been a better mother to her than her own, but also because Katherine's death meant she would have to return home, a prospect that appalled her.

On the morning of 8 September, Katherine Parr was laid to rest. The chapel was hung with black cloth embroidered with the Queen's escutcheons; the altar rails were covered in black cloth, and stools and cushions provided for the mourners. The coffin was preceded into the chapel by two conductors in black carrying black staves, gentlemen, squires, knights, officers of the household carrying white staves, gentlemen ushers, and Somerset Herald in a tabard. Six gentlemen in black gowns and hoods bore the body, with torchbearers at either side, hooded knights walking at each corner. The Lady Jane Grey, acting as chief mourner, came next, her train borne by a young lady, then six other ladies, and other ladies and gentlemen, walking in pairs, then yeomen and lesser folk. Etiquette prevented the bereaved husband from attending.

When the coffin had been set down between the altar rails, psalms were sung in English and three lessons read; after the third, the mourners placed their offerings in the almsbox. Then Dr Miles Coverdale, the Queen's confessor, preached the sermon and led the prayers. When he was finished, the coffin was lowered into a vault beneath the altar pavement while the choir sang theTe Deum.After the service, the mourners went back to the castle for dinner, and then departed, leaving the Admiral to his memories in the great house that now seemed so empty. His servant Edward informed the Lady Elizabeth that 'my lord is a heavy man for the loss of the Queen his 562.

wife', but if the Admiral had hoped to find her willing to console him, he was quickly to be disappointed for there was no reply from her. For all this, his thoughts were very much with the woman who lay not far from him in her tomb, and he was heard to vow that 'no one should speak ill of the Queen, or if he knew it, he would take his fist to the ears of those who did, from the highest to the lowest.' At length, he returned to the world of men and affairs, and early in 1549 joined the English army at Musselburgh to do battle against the Scots. Yet not even his valorous performance in combat could dispel the whispers about his lack of scruples, nor the rumour, spread by Thomas Parry, 'that he had treated the late Queen cruelly, dishonestly, and jealously'.

As time pa.s.sed his grief- which was undoubtedly sincere - faded. Memories grew dim. The d.u.c.h.ess of Somerset told him that if any grudge were borne by her to him, it was all for the late Queen's sake, and now she was taken by death, it would undoubtedly follow that she, the d.u.c.h.ess, would bear as good will to him as ever before.

With Katherine's memory daily receding, the Admiral patched up the feud and returned again to court, taking the first of many ill- considered steps that would, in 1549, lead him to the block for having schemed to gain control of the young King. When news was brought to her of his death, the Lady Elizabeth merely commented, 'This day died a man of much wit, and very little judgement.'

Lady Jane Grey mourned her benefactress most sincerely, and when she had returned to her parents' house, she wrote to thank the Admiral for 'all such good behaviour as she learned by the Queen's most virtuous instruction'. She, too, was fated to die violently, at only sixteen years of age, and her months with Katherine Parr were undoubtedly the happiest time in her short life.

Mary and Elizabeth grieved also for the loss of a stepmother who had been unfailingly kind and protective towards them. Mary could never forget what her father owed to Katherine Parr, and often spoke of 'the great love and affection that [he] did bear unto her Grace'. Her death would herald the beginning of a great divide between the sisters, who had once been close but would now gradually grow ever 563.

more suspicious of each other and end as formidable rivals in the dangerous arena of politics and religion.

When, on 20 March 1549, the Lord Admiral was executed for high treason, his seven-month-old daughter, Lady Mary Seymour, was left an orphan. Nor was this the only calamity that befell her, for later that month Parliament pa.s.sed an Act disinheriting the child. The dispossessed baby was taken in by her late mother's friend, the d.u.c.h.ess of Suffolk, to be brought up with twelve other orphans in her care at her house at Grimsthorpe. Mary's uncle, Lord Northampton, hinted that he would be willing to have the child, but only if the d.u.c.h.ess of Somerset paid him the allowance she and the Duke had promised him for the infant's upkeep. The tight-fisted d.u.c.h.ess, however, would not pay up, and thus the burden of Lady Mary's keep fell upon the d.u.c.h.ess of Suffolk. Within a month, the good woman was finding it too onerous a burden, as, being the daughter of a queen, the child had to be provided with all the trappings suitable to her rank, and these were expensive. The d.u.c.h.ess of Suffolk wrote to William Cecil, who had been a great admirer of Katherine Parr, and asked him to use his influence with the d.u.c.h.ess of Somerset in persuading her to agree to paying the allowance she had promised for the Lady Mary; Lady Suffolk knew that Northampton would never take her without it, for he 'hath as weak a back for such a burden as I have'.

Despite Cecil's pleas, the allowance was not forthcoming. Anne Somerset did send her servant, Richard Bertie (who later married the d.u.c.h.ess of Suffolk) with a message to say that she would be forwarding some nursery plate for her niece; in turn, she wished to see an inventory of all the valuables in use in the child's nursery, so that she could decide for herself what pension was needful. Lady Suffolk was furious when she received this message, and in exasperation wrote to Cecil to say: The Queen's child hath lain, and doth lie, at my house, with her company [i.e. servants] about her, wholly at my charge. I have written to my Lady Somerset at large; there may be some pension allotted to her, according to my lord's Grace's [Somerset's] promise. Now, good Cecil, help at a pinch all that you may help.

564.

Enclosed was a parcel containing the requested inventory of all the valuables that had been set aside for the Lady Mary's use when she left Sudeley Castle, as well as a letter from the child's nurse, Mistress Eglonby, demanding wages for herself and her maids, 'so that ye may the better understand that I cry not before I am p.r.i.c.ked', wrote the d.u.c.h.ess, whose coffers were emptying fast.

The inventory of Lady Mary Seymour's effects survives, and provides us with a fascinating account of what a well-born baby was provided with in those days. There were silver pots and goblets in her nursery, a silver salt cellar, eleven silver spoons, a porringer banded in silver, a quilt for the cradle, three pillows and one pair of sheets, three feather beds, three more quilts and sets of sheets, a tester of scarlet, embroidered, with a counterpane of silk serge, and bed- curtains of crimson taffeta, two counterpanes with embroidered pictures for the nurse's bed, six wall-hangings, four carpets to hang over the windows in cold weather, ten more hangings depicting the months of the year, two cushions of cloth of gold and a chair of the same, two stools and a gilded bedstead with tester, counterpanes and curtains (presumably for when the child was too big for a cradle), two 'milk beasts' - probably pewter jugs fashioned like animals which were earmarked as gifts for the two maids looking after the child as and when they married, and a lute. This last may once have belonged to Katherine Parr, and was perhaps used to lull her little daughter to sleep.

The inventory was forwarded by Cecil to the d.u.c.h.ess of Somerset in the summer of 1549. However, not long afterwards her husband the Lord Protector was overthrown by the Duke of Northumberland - formerly John Dudley, Earl of Warwick - and she was no longer able to fulfil any of her promises, even had she wished to, for the Seymours were now in disgrace. Somerset would end his days as his brother had done, on the block, accused of high treason, in 1552. However, a few months after Somerset's fall, Parliament pa.s.sed an Act restoring to Mary all her father's lands and property, though not his t.i.tles. After that, Lady Suffolk's financial troubles were at an end.

Nothing more is recorded in contemporary sources of Katherine Parr's daughter, and it is likely that she died young while still at Grimsthorpe. In the eighteenth century, most of the papers relating to Katherine Parr were destroyed in a fire at Wilton House, where 565they were stored, a sad loss for historians since they may have held clues to the fate of Katherine's daughter. In the nineteenth century, the historian Agnes Strickland was shown a genealogy belonging to the Lawson family of north-west England, showing that they were descended from a Lady Mary Seymour, who had grown up and married a knight called Sir Edward Bushel, who is known to have been in the household of Anne of Denmark, wife of James I. The evidence for this marriage, however, was based only on a family legend and is unsubstantiated by sixteenth-century sources; it may therefore be discounted. The sad reality was probably that Lady Mary followed her mother to the grave within a few years.

In time, a beautiful tomb was raised by the Admiral over Katherine Parr's remains within the chapel at Sudeley Castle. A marble effigy resembling the Queen was placed on it, and around the sepulchre was written an epitaph composed by her chaplain, Dr Parkhurst, who described her as 'the flower of her s.e.x, renowned, great and wise, a wife by every nuptial virtue known'. Within a hundred years of Katherine's death, the chapel fell into decay, and the tomb was broken up by vandals. In 1782, her coffin was found amid the ruins, and opened. The body was seen to be in a good state of preservation, being clothed in costly burial garments - not a shroud, but a dress. There were shoes on the feet, which were very small. The Queen, it was noted, had been tall - the coffin measured 5' 10" in length - but of delicate build, with long auburn hair. There were traces of beauty in the dead face, the features being perfect on first exposure to the air; however, the processofdecomposition began almost immediately, and the vicar insisted that the body be reinterred. This was done, but inebriated workmen buried it upside down. However, two years later, the body was to be seen outside the chapel, in the remains of the original coffin, and another vicar, Mr Tredway Nash, lamented that he wished 'more respect was paid to the remains of this amiable queen'. He wanted them put into a new coffin and buried elsewhere, so that 'at last her body might rest in peace'. The chapel was by then used for the keeping of rabbits, and was not a suitable place, as the rabbits 'scratch very irreverently about the royal corpse'. It seems, however, that the vicar's plans came to nothing, and that the coffin was merely covered with rubble.

566.

By 1817, when the chapel was being restored, local opinion favoured a search being made for the Queen's remains, and the owner of the castle, Lord Chandos, gave his permission. Eventually, the coffin was found: it was badly damaged and found to contain only a skeleton. It was repaired, however, and finally reburied in the Chandos vault within the Chapel. During the reign of Queen Victoria the restoration of the chapel was completed, and Sir George Gilbert Scott was commissioned to design a fine new tomb in the medieval style for Katherine Parr. He made a marble effigy, copied from lost engravings of the original, which was placed on the finished monument in 1862, and this is the tomb we see there today, along with some vivid Victorian stained-gla.s.s windows, depicting Katherine Parr with her last two husbands, Henry VIII and Thomas Seymour. It is a fitting memorial to this most charming of queens.

After the death of Katherine, only one of Henry VIII's wives still lived, Anne of Cleves, who was perhaps the most fortunate, for after her divorce she had lived on in England in peace and contentment, enjoying the respect and affection of her former husband's family. Until the King died in 1547, she knew prosperity also, for her annual allowance of 3,000 was paid regularly, though after Henry's death the payments fell into arrears, and in 1550 so much was owed that Anne was driven to pet.i.tioning Edward VI about it; she was curtly informed, however, that 'the King's Highness, being on his progress, could not be troubled at that time about payments.' Nevertheless, he did authorise some of the debt to be paid soon afterwards, although Anne never received the full balance due to her for those years. In 1552 she complained again, and was granted various lands and manors, the rent from these being intended to supplement her income. Yet, as Anne pointed out, in a letter to her close friend, the Lady Mary, 'I was well contented to have continued without exchange,' to which end she had 'travailed to my great cost and charge almost this twelve months'.

This letter was written at Bletchingly in Surrey, one of the houses granted to Anne of Cleves after the annulment of her marriage. The others were Richmond and Hever, and she seems to have divided her time among all three. Richmond had once been the favourite home of Henry VII, and was by far the largest; after Anne's death, 567.

Elizabeth I would come to love this mellow, red-brick palace on the banks of the Thames, and would die there in 1603. Bletchingly Place was also built of red brick; it had once been in the hands of that Duke of Buckingham who had been executed by Henry VIII in 1521, after which it had come into the possession of the Crown. All that remains of it today is a Tudor gatehouse at Place Farm. Hever Castle, of course, had been the home of Anne Boleyn from childhood until her marriage to the King; it had fallen to the Crown on the death of Anne's father, the Earl of Wiltshire, without heirs, in 1539. Anne of Cleves seems to have favoured it least among her houses, probably because it held too many memories of her unfortunate predecessor. Yet she did go there from time to time; in 1547, Katherine Ba.s.sett, who had entered Anne's household after the latter's divorce, was married to Mr Henry Ashley of Hever, whom she no doubt met when accompanying her mistress on a visit to the castle.

Anne was always welcome at court and therefore able to enjoy the best of both worlds, as an honourary member of the King's family and as a country gentlewoman. She was therefore a witness to the shifting vicissitudes of power and the changing fortunes of the monarchy that characterised the middle years of the sixteenth century. She saw Edward VI decline in health and learned of his death from consumption at the age of fifteen in July 1553. She heard, not long afterwards, how Northumberland had plotted to set the Lady Jane Grey - whom he had married to his son, Lord Guildford Dudley - upon the throne, that he might conserve power for himself and thus preserve the Protestant religion in England. And she learned, with sincere gladness, how the country had rallied to Mary Tudor's cause, and how Mary had overthrown Queen Jane and been herself proclaimed Queen of England. In October 1553, Anne was present at Mary I's coronation in Westminster Abbey, and occupied the same litter as the Lady Elizabeth in the procession to and from the Abbey.

Some months later, Anne was writing from Hever to congratulate Mary on her marriage to the Catholic Philip of Spain, son and heir of the Emperor Charles V, and to ask 'when and where I shall wait on your Majesty and his'. She sent also a wish that they should both enjoy 'much joy and felicity, with increase of children to G.o.d's glory and the preservation of your prosperous estates'. Sadly, Mary 568.

whose first legislation in Parliament had been an Act declaring her parents' marriage lawful - was never to bear a child. What was at first thought to be a pregnancy later turned out to be a malignant growth within the womb.

Mary had originally been responsible for Anne of Cleves's conversion to Roman Catholicism, and by the 1550s Anne had long since repudiated Protestantism. She would have heard, no doubt, of the coming of the Inquisition to England, and also of the burning of more than 300 heretics, among them Archbishop Cranmer, on the Queen's orders. It had been Mary's intention from the first to eradicate the Protestant heresy from her realm, and to return her kingdom to the fold of the Roman Church. This she had done, but at a price, and when she died she would be remembered, not as the saviour of the English Church, but as 'b.l.o.o.d.y Mary', a monster of cruelty.

It appears that during these years Anne of Cleves rarely went to court, preferring to lead the life of a private gentlewoman, attending to domestic affairs and managing her estates. She seems to have become quite efficient at this, and to have converted her property into a thriving a.s.set. The rents she received from her manors now enabled her to live in comfort, and her steward, Sir Thomas Cawarden (who had formerly been Henry VIII's Master of the Revels), a.s.sisted her so ably that when she died she bequeathed to him her manor of Bletchingly as a reward. It was Cawarden who in 1556 made her a generous loan with which to buy furniture for a small house she had recently purchased at Dartford in Kent; indeed, she seems to have relied on him implicitly in financial matters.

Anne never married again, nor did she ever leave England; her parents were dead, and her brother, a strict Protestant, did not approve of her conversion to the old faith. Thus a return to Cleves, even had she wished it, was out of the question. In fact she had grown fond of England and its people, and intended to die in her adoptive land. In her latter years, when her health began to fail, she was allowed by Queen Mary to live at Chelsea Old Manor, where Katherine Parr had once lived with Admiral Seymour, and it was here, in mid-July 1557, that she dictated her will, a doc.u.ment that bears witness to her kindness and compa.s.sion for others. To her brother she left a diamond ring, and to his wife a ruby ring; to her 569sister, the Lady Amelia, went another diamond ring, as also to the d.u.c.h.ess of Norfolk and the Countess of Arundcl. The Lady Elizabeth was to have Anne's second-best jewel, and there was a request for her to find employment in her household for 'one of our poor maids named Dorothy Curzon'. To Mother Lovell, 'for her care and attendance upon us in the time of our sickness', there was a bequest of 10.00, likewise to 'our poor servant, James Powell'; Elya Turpin, Anne's laundress, was to receive 4.00 'to pray for us'. Each of the executors was remembered 'for their pains': the Lord Chancellor was to have a standing cup and cover of gold or a crystal gla.s.s set with precious stones; Sir Richard Preston would get 'our best gilt bowl with a cover', and Edmund Peckham a jug of gold.

The Queen, 'our most dearest and entirely beloved sovereign lady', was asked to be overseer of the will, 'with most humble request to see the same performed as shall to her Highness seem best for the health of our soul'. In token of 'the special trust and affection which we have in her Grace', Anne bequeathed to Mary Tudor her best jewel, begging her to see that her servants were well provided for, in consideration of their long service; many had been with her since 1540, and Anne reminded the Queen how her father King Henry had 'said then unto us that he would account our servants his own; therefore we beseech the Queen's Majesty to accept them in this time of their extreme need.'

Anne knew she was dying when she dictated her will, and she ended it with the requests that all those benefiting from it should pray for her soul and see her body buried 'according to the Queen's will and pleasure', and that she might be given the last rites of 'Holy Church, according to the Catholic faith, wherein we end our life in this transitory world'.

Anne of Cleves died on 16 July 1557, at Chelsea, a few weeks short of her forty-second birthday. The illness that caused her death is not named. She was buried, on 3 August, by order of the Queen, in Westminster Abbey with great ceremony. The coffin was borne from Chelsea on a hea.r.s.e, and was covered with seven rich palls. Many priests and clergy walked in the procession, as well as the Bishop of London and some of the monks who had not long before been allowed to return to Westminster Abbey. With them was their Abbot, John f.e.c.kenham, with the dead woman's executors, followed 570.

by several representatives of the n.o.bility and gentry. The late Queen's banners were carried aloft by members of her household, who also walked in the procession. At Charing Cross, the cortege was met by a hundred more of Anne's servants, all bearing torches, who joined the throng of mourners, together with her ladies, clad in black, mounted on horses, as well as twelve 'beadsmen' of Westminster and eight heralds bearing white banners of arms, who ringed the corpse.

At the Abbey door, everyone dismounted, and the Bishop of London, with the Abbot of Westminster, received the body, swinging censers of incense over it. Then the coffin was borne into the great church, covered with a canopy of black velvet, and put in position before the altar, where it remained all night while the monks sang dirges. The next morning, a requiem ma.s.s was sung, and the Abbot preached a sermon. Bishop Bonner, wearing his mitre, said ma.s.s, then the coffin was laid in its tomb in the south transept of the Abbey. The chief officers of Anne's household then came forward and broke their staves of office, casting them after the coffin. Jane Seymour's sister Elizabeth, Marchioness of Winchester, was chief mourner, and she led the ladies in making their offerings afterwards. When the obsequies were concluded, her husband, John Paulet, Marquess of Winchester, entertained all the mourners to a funeral banquet at his London home. Within a month, the monks of Westminster had despoiled the hea.r.s.e left over Anne's tomb, removing all the palls and banners adorning it, and Queen Mary gave orders for Anne's countryman, the stonemason Theodore Haveus, to come over from Cleves and fashion a proper monument. In 1606, a bare marble slab decorated with the earliest example of a skull and crossbones to appear in England was placed above Haveus's tomb. Today, Anne's final resting place is obscured by two monuments dating from the late seventeenth century.

Mary I did not long survive Anne of Cleves. She died, embittered and unloved, on 17 November 1558, and was succeeded by her sister, who became Queen Elizabeth I. Mary was buried not far from Anne of Cleves, in one of the side-chapels to the great Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey.

Half a century after Anne's death, the chronicler Raphael Holinshed remembered her as 'a lady of right commendable regard, 571.

courteous, gentle, a good housekeeper, and very bountiful to her servants'. There had never been, he wrote, 'any quarrels, talebearings or mischievous intrigues in her court, and she was tenderly loved by her domestics.'

It was an apt and well-deserved tribute.

573.

General The major sources for this book have been the monumentalCalendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII(21 vols in 33 parts, edsj. S. Brewer, James Gairdner and R. Brodie, HMSO, 1862-1932), which is said to include at least one million separate facts about Henry;State Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII,published under the Authority of Her Majesty's Commission (11 vols, Records Commissioners, 1831-52); and, for the latter part of the reign in particular, theActs of the Privy Council of England(32 vols, ed. John Roche Dasent, HMSO, 1890-1918).

Of the diplomatic sources, by far the most useful and informative, if necessarily biased, is theCalendar of Letters, Despatches and State Papers relating to negotiations between England and Spain, preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere(17 vols, ed. G. A. Bergenroth, P. deGoyangos, G. Mattingley, R. Tyler etal., HMSO, 18621965). This incorporates amba.s.sadors' dispatches and a large volume of the correspondence of Katherine of Aragon and the Spanish monarchs. Also very useful, especially for descriptions of pageantry and ceremonial, is theCalendar of State Papers and Ma.n.u.scripts relating to English Affairs preserved in the Archives of Venice and in the other Libraries of Northern Italy(7 vols, eds L. Rawdon-Brown, Cavendish Bentinck et al., HMSO, 1864-1947). Other diplomatic sources for 574r Bibliography the period are theCalendar of State Papers and Ma.n.u.scripts existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan: vol. i, 1385-1618(ed. A. B. Hinds, 1912); theMemoiresof Martin and Guillaumc du Bcllay, French amba.s.sadors to the court of Henry VIII (4 vols, eds V. L. Bourrilly and F. Vindry, Paris, 1908-19);Correspondance du Cardinal Jeandu Bellay(ed. R. Scheurer, Paris, 1969);Correspondance Politique de MM. de Castillon et de Marillac, Amba.s.sadeurs de France en Angeleterre, 1537-1542(ed. J. Kaulek, Paris, 1885);Correspondance Politique de Odet de Selve, Amba.s.sadeur de France en Angleterre, 15461549(ed. G. Lefevre-Pontalis, Paris, 1888);Negotiations Diplomatiques entre la France et I'Autriche, 1491-1530(2 vols, ed. A. J. G. Le Glay, Paris, 1845-47);andPapiers d'Etat du Cardinal Granvelle, 1500-1565(9 vols, ed. C. Weiss, 1841-52).

Official records for the period are contained in the Rolls of Parliament,Rotuli Parliamentorum(7 vols, ed. J. Strachey et al., Records Commissioners, 1767-1832), in which are detailed all the Acts and Statutes, as well as parliamentary proceedings;Household Ordinances: A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Government of the Royal Household(Society of Antiquaries, 1790);Journals of Parliament for the Reign of Henry VIII, 150^-1536(r. 1742);Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIIIfrom November 1529 to December 1532(ed. H. Nicolas, 1827);Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England(ed. H. Nicolas, Records Commissioners, 1834-7);The Statutes, AD 1235-1770(HMSO, 1950);Statutes of the Realm(11 vols, Records Commissioners, 1810-28);State Trials vol. 1, 11631600(ed. D. Thomas, W. Cobbett and T. B. Rowell, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972);English Historical Doc.u.ments, 1485-1558(eds C. H. Williams and D. C. Douglas, 1967); and, for doc.u.mentary sources for the latter period of the book, theCalendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth, 15471580(2 vols, ed. R. Lemon, Longman, Brown, Green, 1856) and theCalendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, Elizabeth/(ed.J. Stevenson et al., 1863-1950).

There are also several invaluable chronicle and narrative sources dealing with the reign of Henry VIII in general. Three are contemporary, or written by contemporaries. The first is Edward Hall's Chronicle, published in two versions:The Union of the n.o.ble and Ill.u.s.trious Families of Lancaster and York(first published 1542; ed.

575f Bibliography H. Nicolas; G. Woodfall, Printer 1809) andThe Triumphant Reign of King Henry the Eighth(first published 1547; ed. C. Whibley and T. C. and E. C.Jack, 2 vols, 1904). Hall was a lawyer; his chronicles have a strong patriotic bias in favour of Henry VIII, and he tends to gloss over compromising issues. His descriptions of state occasions have not been surpa.s.sed, and his true value is as an annalist. The second contemporary source is George Cavendish'sThe Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey(first published 1557; ed. R. Sylvester, Early English Texts Society, 1959), which is particularly useful for the early career of Anne Boleyn. Cavendish was Wolsey's secretary and well placed to record contemporary events, yet his admiration for his master makes him a biased observer. The third, and most controversial, source is theCronico del Rey Enrico Otavo de Inglaterra,written before 1552 and sometimes attributed to Antonio de Guaras, who came to England in the train of Eustache Chapuys, the Spanish amba.s.sador. It was printed asThe Chronicle of King Henry VIII(ed. M. A. S. Hume, George Bell and Sons, 1889), but is commonly referred to by Ihistorians as the 'Spanish Chronicle'. Much of the information in it is Ibased on hearsay and rumour, although many writers have been sfooled by a seeming authenticity of detail which is not always 1corroborated by other sources. This source should therefore be itreated with caution.

John Foxe, in his popularHistory of the Acts and Monuments of the Church(better known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs) (published in 1563; ed. G. Townshend and S. R. Cattley, 8 vols, Seelcy and Burnside, 1837-41), gives interesting details about Anne Boleyn and Katherine Parr, both of whom he represented as Reformation heroines. Raphael Holinshed'sChronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland(first published 1577; ed. H. Ellis, 6 vols, G. Woodfall, Printer, 1807-8) draws mainly upon Hall's chronicle. Charles Wriothesley, Windsor Herald, wrote before 1562 hisChronicle of England in the Reigns of the Tudors from 1485 to 1559(ed. W. D. Hamilton, 2 vols, Camden Society, 2nd series, X and XX, 1875, 1877). Wriothesley was the first cousin of Thomas, Earl of Southampton and Lord Chancellor of England, and may therefore be considered a reliable primary source, especially for 576r Bibliography the 1540s, although his work was not published until 1581. The antiquarian John Stow wrote two useful books,The Annals of England(1592; ed. E. Howes, London, 163 1) and his celebratedSurvey of London(1598; ed. C. L. Kingsford, 2 vols, Oxford University Press, 1908). Another valuable later work is Lord Herbert of Cherbury'sThe Life and Reign of King Henry the Eighth(published a year after his death in 1649; ed. White Kennett, 1870), which may be considered to be the first 'modern' biography of the King. Herbert used original source material, some of which has since been lost or destroyed, and he was less subjective in his approach to his subject than earlier Protestant writers.

The later Catholic sources for Henry VIII's reign, most of which were printed abroad, are all biased against the King. Nicholas Harpsfield'sA Treatise on the Pretended Divorce between King Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon(ed. N. Poc.o.c.ke, Camden Society, 2nd series, XXI, 1878) was published in 1556 when Katherine's daughter Mary I was reigning and is consequently imbued with the spirit of the Counter-Reformation. Like most later Catholic sources, Harps- field's work contains much that is apocryphal. One of the most damaging works ever printed was Nicholas Sanders'De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani(first published in 1585 in Rome; printed asThe Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism,ed. D. Lewis, 1877). Sanders was an English Jesuit, exiled to Rome in the reign of Elizabeth I. He had nothing but contempt for Henry VIII, but the chief object of his venom was Anne Boleyn, whom he portrayed as evil personified, the cause of the English Reformation, and the English Jezebel. Sanders is responsible for many apocryphal anecdotes about Anne - such as the tale that she was the result of an affair between Henry VIII and Elizabeth Howard, or the tale that she was raped at the age of seven - and his treatise was received with scornful scepticism in England, prompting a reply by George Wyatt (see below, under chapter 7). Another Catholic writer working at the end of the sixteenth century was Gregorio Leti, who wrote a life of Elizabeth I which was suppressed by the Catholic authorities in Italy, probably because it was too favourable to its subjects. Nearly all the original copies were destroyed, and the work only survives in a French translation of 1694,La Vie d'Elisabeth, Reine d'Angleterre,from which some of the original material is certainly missing. It is 577.

thought that Lcti made use of contemporary sources now lost to us, and for this reason his narrative may be of some value, although parts have been shown to be apocryphal. Girolamo Pollino, another Italian Catholic, wrote hisIstoria dell' Ecclesiastica della Rivoluzion d'lnghilterrain 1594. Although he was biased against Henry VIII, there is evidence that much of his information was drawn from reliable sources, as many of his statements are corroborated by more contemporary sources. Unfortunately, there is much that has also been shown to be fanciful. The best Catholic source is Henry Clifford'sLife of Jane Dormer, d.u.c.h.ess of Feria(published 1643; ed. E. E. Estcourt andj. Stevenson, Burns and Oates, 1887). Jane Dormer was one of Mary I's maids of honour and confidantes. When the Duke of Feria came to England in 1554 in the train of Philip of Spain, he fell in love with Jane and took her back to Spain as his wife. Many years later she dictated her memoirs to her English secretary, Henry Clifford, who published them after her death. They remain one of the better late sources, although one must allow for a certain bias and lapses in an old lady's memory.

There are several collections of primary source material for the period:Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity(102 vols, Society of Antiquaries, 1773 -1969);The Antiquarian Repertory: A Miscellany intended to Preserve and ill.u.s.trate several valuable Remains of Old Times(4 vols, London, 1775-84, and a later edition by F. Grose and T. Astle, 1808); Thomas Fuller'sThe Church History of Britain(1655) preserves details from sources now lost to us;Records of the Reformation: The Divorce, 1527-1533(2 vols, ed. N. Poc.o.c.ke, Oxford, 1870); Thomas Rymer'sFeodera(ed. T. Hardy, Records Commissioners, 1816-69); John Strype'sEcclesiastical Memorials(3 vols, 1721-33; Oxford edn, 1822); John Weever'sAncient Funeral Monuments within the United Monarchy of Great Britain, Ireland and the Islands adjacent. . . and what Eminent Persons have been in the Same interred(Thomas Harper, 1631); andExcerpta Historica(eds S. Bentley and H. Nicolas, 1831).

Of primary importance to the historian are the printed collections of correspondence. The letters of Henry VIII appear in four compilations: M. St Clair Byrne'sThe Letters of King Henry VIII(Ca.s.sell, 1936);Lettres de Henri VIII(ed. G. A. c.r.a.pelet, 1826); andLove Letters of Henry VIII(two edns: H. Savage, 1949 and Jasper Ridley, 577.

578r Bibliography 1988). Letters written by Henry's wives appear inLetters of Royal and Ill.u.s.trious Ladies(ed. M.A.E. Wood, 1846) and Margaret Sanders'sIntimate Letters of England's Queens(1957). Also worth consulting are:Lettres de Rois, Reines et autres Personages des Cours de France et d''Angleterre(ed. J.J. Champollion-Figeac, Paris, 1845-7, vol. 2);Original Letters ill.u.s.trative of English History(11 vols, ed. H. Ellis Richard Bentley, 1824-46);Original Letters relative to the English Reformation(ed. H. Robinson, Parker Society, 1846-7);The Lisle Letters(ed. M. St Clair Byrne, 1981), which is particularly useful for the period 1533 to 1540;Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer(ed. J.E. Fox, Parker Society, 1846);The Correspondence of Matthew Parker, 1535-1575(ed. J. Bruce and T. Perowne, Parker Society, 1853; and theEpistlesof Desiderius Erasmus (3 vols, trans. F. M. Nichols Russell and Russell, 1962).

The chief secondary sources for the period in general are as follows:Handbook of British Chronology(ed. F. M. Powicke and E. B. Fryde, Royal Historical Society, 1961), which is invaluable for details of officers of state and the peerage; theDictionary of National Biography(63 vols, eds L. Stephen and S. Lee, Oxford University Press, 1885-1900) gives biographical details of the lives of most of the people in this book;The Complete Peerage(ed. G. H. White et al., St Catherine's Press, 1910-59) gives a wealth of genealogical data on the aristocracy;Burke's Guide to the Royal Family(Burke's Peerage, 1973) gives details of royal genealogy and inst.i.tutions; Alison Weir'sBritain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy(The Bodley Head, 1989); andC. R. N. Routh'sThey Saw it Happen, 1485-1688(Black- well, 1956),They Saw it Happen in Europe, 1540-1660(Blackwell, 1965), andWho's Who in History, 1485-1603(Blackwell, 1964).

For general history of the Tudor period, seej. D. Mackie:The Earlier Tudors, 1485-1588(Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1952); G. R. Elton'sEngland under the Tudors(Methuen, 1955) andThe Tudor Const.i.tution(Methuen, 1960); David Harrison's delightfully ill.u.s.trated study,Tudor England(2 vols, 1953); Christopher Morris's interesting series of character portraits,The Tudors(Batsford, 1955); M. Roulstone's lavishThe Royal House of Tudor(Balfour, 1974); G.o.dfrey E. Turton'sThe Dragon's Breed(1969); G. W. O. Woodward'sReformation and Resurgence, 1485-1603(Blandford, 1963); and P. Williamson'sLife in Tudor England(Batsford, 1964).

579.

There are several books on the Reformation. J. H. Merle d'Aubigny'sThe Reformation in England(1853) is outdated and inaccurate, but there are several more modern works that are well worth consulting: Sir F. Maurice Powicke'sThe Reformation in England(Oxford University Press, 1951); Philip Hughes'sThe Reformation in England(Macmillan, 1950)-vol. 1 covers Henry VIII's reign; H. Maynard-Smith'sHenry VIII and the Reformation(Macmillan, 1962); and, for related subjects, see Erwin Doernberg'sHenry VIII and Luther(Stanford University Press, 1961), William A. Clebsch'sEngland's Earliest Protestants, 1520-1535(Yale University Press, 1964), and James Kelsey McConica'sEnglish Humanists and Reformation Politics under Henry VIII and Edward VI(Oxford University Press, 1965).

Henry VIII has been the subject of many biographies. The most recent and best ones have been Jasper Ridley'sHenry VIII(Constable, 1984), J.J. Scarisbrick'sHenry VIII(Constable, 1968) and Carolly Erickson's brilliantly detailedGreat Harry(Dent, 1980). Previous biographies consulted includeJ.J. Bagley'sHenry VIII(Batsford, 1962), Lacey Baldwin-Smith'sHenry VIII: The Mask of Royalty(Jonathan Cape, 1971), John Bowie'sHenry VIII(Allen and Unwin, 1964), N. Brysson-Morrison'sThe Private Life of Henry VIII(Robert Hale, 1964), Francis Hackett'sHenry the Eighth(1929; Chivers Edition, 1973); Robert Lacey'sThe Life and Times of Henry VIII(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972), Philip Lindsay'sThe Secret of Henry VIII(Howard Baker, 1953), Kenneth Pickthorn'sEarly Tudor Government: Henry VIII(1951); A. F. Pollard'sHenry VIII(Longmans Green and Co., 1902) and Beatrice Saunders's rather subjective study,Henry the Eighth(Alvin Redman, 1963). For Henry's youth, see Frank Arthur Mumby'sThe Youth of Henry VIII(Constable, 1913), which draws heavily on the Spanish Calendar, and Marie Louise Bruce's enjoyableThe Making of Henry VIII(Collins, 1977).

All six of Henry VIII's wives are dealt with in the following works: Agnes Strickland'sLives of the Queens of England(8 vols, Henry Colburn, 1851, and the Portway Reprint by Cedric Civers of Bath, 1972), much outdated now but a milestone of historical research in its time; Heather Jenner'sRoyal Wives(1967); and Norah Lofts'sQueens of Britain(Hodder and Stoughton, 1977). The last serious collective biography of the six wives was Martin A. S.

580r Bibliography Hume'sThe Wives of Henry the Eighth(Eveleigh Nash, 1905), long out of print and out of date. Paul Rival'sThe Six Wives of Henry VIII(Heinemann, 1937) is nearer to fiction than fact, and gives no details of sources.

There have been several individual biographies of Henry VIII's wives. For Katherine of Aragon, see Garrett Mattingley's excellentCatherine of Aragon(Jonathan Cape, 1942), Mary M. Luke'sCatherine the Queen(Muller, 1967), Francesca Claremont'sCatherine of Aragon(Robert Hale, 1939) and John E. Paul'sCatherine of Aragon and her Friends(Burns and Oates, 1966), a very useful study. (It should be noted that Katherine herself signed her name with a 'K', not a 'C'.) Anne Boleyn has attracted more biographers than any of Henry's wives: Paul Friedmann'sAnne Boleyn: A Chapter of English History, 1527-1536(2 vols, Macmillan, 1884) was for years the standard biography, but has since been replaced by more recent works: Philip Sergeant'sThe Life of Anne Boleyn(Hutchinson, 1923); Marie Louise Bruce'sAnne Boleyn(Collins, 1972); Hester W. Chapman'sAnne Boleyn(Jonathan Cape, 1974); Norah Lofts'sAnne Boleyn(Orbis Books, 1979), very much popular history, drawing on Strickland; Carolly Erickson'sAnne Boleyn(Dent, 1984); E. W. Ives's compelling academic study,Anne Boleyn(Blackwell, 1986), to which this author is greatly indebted; and Retha Warnicke's controversialThe Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII(Cambridge University Press, 1989). There is no separate biography of Jane Seymour, but there is a good account of her life and the fortunes of her family in William Seymour'sOrdeal by Ambition: An English Family in the Shadow of the Tudors(Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972). Anne of Cleves also lacks a biographer, and the major account of her life is still the chapter in Strickland'sLives of the Queens of England.Lacey Baldwin-Smith has written a superb study of the life of Katherine Howard inA Tudor Tragedy(Jonathan Cape, 1961). Anthony Martiensson'sQueen Katherine Parr(Seeker and Warburg, 1973) is another excellent work.

For Henry VIII's 'great matter', see Geoffrey de C. Parmiter'sThe King's Great Matter(Longmans, 1967) and Marvin H. Albert'sThe Divorce(Harrap, 1965). William Hepworth Dixon'sHistory of Two Queens(4 vols, Bickers and Son, 1873) is now greatly outdated.

There are several good biographies of Henry VIII's children, all of 581.

which have proved useful for research purposes. Mary I's early life is related by Milton Waldman inThe Lady Mary(Collins, 1972), and there is an excellent full biography by Carolly Erickson,b.l.o.o.d.y Mary(Dent, 1978). The early life of Elizabeth I is described in several books, viz.: Alison Plowden'sThe Young Elizabeth(Macmillan, 1971), Mary M. Luke'sA Crown for Elizabeth(Muller, 1971), Edith Sitwell'sFanfare for Elizabeth(Macmillan, 1949), and in full biograhies by B. W. Beckinsale,Elizabeth/(Batsford, 1963), John E. Neale,Queen Elizabeth I(Jonathan Cape, 1934), Jasper Ridley,Elizabeth I(Constable, 1987) and Neville Williams,Elizabeth, Queen of England(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1967). For the early life of Edward VI see Hester W. Chapman'sThe Last Tudor King(Jonathan Cape, 1958) and W. K. Jordan'sEdward VI: The Young King(Allen and Unwin, 1968).

For the royal palaces of the Tudors see James Dowsing's fascinatingForgotten Tudor Palaces in the London Area(Sunrise Press, no date, 1980s); Janet Dunbar'sA Prospect of Richmond(Harrap, 1966); Ian Dunlop'sPalaces and Progresses of Elizabeth I(Jonathan Cape, 1962); Benton Fletcher'sRoyal Homes near London(1930); Bruce Graeme'sThe Story of StJames's Palace(Hutchinson, 1929); and Philip Howard'sThe Royal Palaces(Hamish Hamilton, 1960).

For the Tower of London and its history seej. Bayley'sHistory and Antiquities of the Tower of London(Jennings and Chaplin, 1830); D. C. Bell'sNotices of Historic Persons Buried in the Tower(1877), an account of the bones found in St Peter ad Vincula;The Tower of London: its Buildings and Inst.i.tutions(ed. John Charlton, HMSO, 1978), a book that throws new light upon Anne Boleyn's imprisonment in the Tower; John E. N. Hea.r.s.ey'sThe Tower(John Murray, 1960); R. J. Minney'sThe Tower of London(Ca.s.sell, 1970); and A. L. Rowse'sThe Tower of London in the History of the Nation(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1974).

For details of coronations and burials in Westminster Abbey, see the highly detailedOfficial Guide,Arthur Penrhyn Stanley'sHistorical Memorials of Westminster Abbey(1886) and Edward Carpenter'sA House of Kings(Baker, 1966). For the Archbishops of Canterbury of the period, see Edward Carpenter'sCantuar: The Archbishops in their Office(Baker, 1971). For Scottish affairs, see Caroline Bingham'sJames V, King of Scots (Collins,1971).

581.

I.

582r Bibliography For pageantry and ceremonial in the Tudor period, see Sydney Anglo'sSpectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy(Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1969) and Robert Withington'sEnglish Pageantry: An Historical Outline(1918). For the Tudor court, see Neville Williams's fascinatingHenry VIII and his Court(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971), Christopher Hibbert'sThe Court at Windsor(Longmans, 1964) and Ralph Dutton'sEnglish Court Life from Henry VII to George II(Batsford, 1963). Henry VIII's courtiers are the subject of an excellent book by David Mathew,The Courtiers of Henry VIII(Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1970). William Edward Mead'sThe English Mediaeval Feast(Allen and Unwin, 1931) gives interesting information about court banquets. The cultural background to the period is described in Elizabeth M. Nugent'sThe Thought and Culture of the English Renaissance(Cambridge University Press, 1966). For Tudor drama, see Frederick Boas'sAn Introduction to Tudor Drama(Oxford University Press, 1933). For poetry, see Maurice Evans'sEnglish Poetry in the Sixteenth Century(Hutchinson, 1967) and Philip Henderson'sThe Complete Poems of fohn Skelton, Laureate(1931; 2nd rev. edn, Dent, 1948). Sir Thomas Wyatt's poems are dealt with under the heading to chapter 7. Sir Roy Strong'sTudor and Jacobean Portraits (2vols, HMSO, 1969) is the most exhaustive study of Tudor royal portraits so far, but Christopher Lloyd's and Simon Thurley'sImages of a Tudor King(Phaidon Press, 1990) is useful for its descriptions of Henry VIII's iconography. Hans Holbein, the greatest painter of the early Tudor period, painted Henry VIII and at least two of his wives; the greatest authority on Holbein is Paul Ganz:The Paintings of Hans Holbein(Phaidon Press, 1956). For Tudor costume, the bestauthority is Herbert Norris'sCostume and Fashion, vol 111, TheTudors, book 1, 1485-1547(Dent, 1928); see also Norman Hartnell'sRoyal Courts of Fashion(Ca.s.sell, 1971).

Introduction.

Contemporary views of the role of women in sixteenth-century society are to be found in the following works: John Colet'sA Right 583.

Fruitful Monition(i 515); Colet was a friend of Sir Thomas More, Dean of St Paul's and founder of St Paul's School, and his views were those of a traditional churchman; Miles Coverdale'sThe Christian State of Matrimony(1543); Desiderius Erasmus'sThe Inst.i.tution of Christian Marriage(1526); Henry VIII's own view on matrimony in hisa.s.sertioScptem Sacramentorum adversus Martinus Lutherus(published 1521; ed.O'Donovan, New York, 1908); the Scots reformer John Knox'sFirstBlast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women(ed.E. Arber, The English Scholar's Library of Old and Modern Works, 1878), for an extreme view; Sir Thomas More'sUtopia(1516) for an idealistic view; two tracts by Queen Katherine Parr,The Lamentations ofa Sinner(1547) andPrayers and Meditations(1545); and WilliamTyndale'sThe Obedience of a Christian Man(1528). See also Doris Mary Stenton'sThe English Woman in History(Allen and Unwin, 1957).

For enlightened views on education, see Roger Ascham'sThe Schoolmaster(1570), Ascham having been tutor to Queen Elizabeth I and the Lady Jane Grey. Juan Luis Vives's rigorous plan for the education of the Princess Mary is encapsulated inDe Inst.i.tutionc Foeminae Christianae(Basle, 1538; trans. R. Hyrd, and printed in London by Thomas Berthelet, 1540).

The princess from Spain The negotiations for the marriage of Katherine of Aragon to Arthur, Prince of Wales, during the period 1488 to 1501 are detailed extensively in the Spanish Calendar. Katherine's presentation to the English amba.s.sadors at the age of two is described by the herald Ruy Machado inMemorials of King Henry VII(ed. J. Gairdner, Rolls Series, Longman, Brown, Green and Roberts, 1858). Accounts of the reigns of Ferdinand and Isabella are given by two Spanish chroniclers, Hernando del Pulgar, in hisCronica de los Scnoras Reyes Catolicas(published 1567; to be found in theBiblioteca de Autores Espanola,vol. LXX, Madrid, 1878) and Andres Bernaldes, in hisHistoria de los Reyes Catolicos D. Fernando y Doha Isabel(Seville, 1870, 584r Bibliography and a later edition by M. Gomez-Moreno andj. de M. Carriazo, Madrid, 1962). The descriptions of Ferdinand and Isabella are based on those given by Pulgar, who was Queen Isabella's secretary. An excellent secondary authority on the history of Spain in the late- fifteenth and early-sixteenth century isThe Castles and the Crown: Spain, 1451-1555by the English historian Townshend Miller (Gollancz, 1953). The only primary source to mention Katherine of Aragon and her sisters during their childhood is Vives.

Henry VII's instructions to the City of London for the state reception of Katherine of Aragon are in the Corporation of London Records Office and also in the Harleian MS. and Cotton MS. Vitellius in the British Library. Katherine of Aragon's departure from Spain andjourney to England is described by Bernaldes.

2 A true and loving husband The Spanish Calendar gives details of the dispute over Katherine's dowry and Henry VII's prevarication over her accompanying Arthur to Ludlow. It also describes Katherine's reception in England, as does Leland inCollectanea.Henry VII's insistence on seeing Katherine at Dogmersfield is described inProceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of EnglandandCollectanea; Collectaneais the source for Katherine's first meeting and evening with Prince Arthur.

The description of Henry VII derives from that given by the King's official historian, Polydore Vergil, in hisAnglica Historia(Basle, 1534; ed. D. Hay, Camden Society, 3rd series, LXXIV, 1950). Vergil is the chief primary authority for the reign of Henry VII. The first 'modern' biography of the King was Sir Francis Bacon'sHistory of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh(ed. J. R. Lumby, Cambridge, 1875); today, the definitive life is S. B. Chrimes'sHenry VII(Eyre Methuen, 1972); Eric N. Simons'sHenry VII: The First Tudor King(Barnes and n.o.ble, 1968) is also useful. There is a good biography of Elizabeth of York by N. LenzHarvey,Elizabeth of York, Tudor Queen(Arthur Barker, 1973), which replaces 585.

the memoir by Strickland. Both Vergil, and John Foxe, in hisActs and Monuments,credit Henry and Elizabeth with four sons, as does Dean Stanley. However, the contemporary Windsor altarpiece shows only three, Arthur, Henry and Edmund. Dean Stanley says that an Edward Tudor (1495?-9) was buried in Westminster Abbey; he has perhaps confused him with his brother Edmund. Details of the youth of Henry VIII are to be found inLetters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII(detailed above), hereafter to be referred to asL & P;for his education see Bernard Andre'sVita Henrici VII(1500-8; inMemorials of King Henry VII,detailed above) - Andre was tutor to Henry VII's two elder sons.

The major events and state occasions of the reign of Henry VII are chronicled by Polydore Vergil, Pietro Carmelia.n.u.s of Brescia, in his'Solomnes Ceremoniae et Triumph?(1508; ed. H. Ellis, Roxburgh Club, 1818), the London merchant Robert Fabyan inThe C