Henry VIII's Last Victim (61 page)

28
‘Two London Chronicles from the Collections of John Stow’, ed. C. L. Kingsford,
Camden Miscellany
12, CS, 3rd series, 18 (1910), p. 8.

29
Ives,
Anne Boleyn
, p. 167.

30
Statutes of the Realm
, pp. 471–4, 492, 508–9.

31
Wriothesley I, p. 27;
CSP Sp.
V i, 156.

32
P. Ackroyd,
The Life of Thomas More
(1998), p. 381.

33
Notes from the archives at Paris and Brussels, in Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, p. 105.

34
Two Early Tudor Lives
, p. 237.

35
Lucien Febvre quoted by Knecht,
Francis I
, p. 141.

36
Narratives of the Days of the Reformation
, p. 56. For further reading, see M. Dowling, ‘Anne Boleyn and Reform’,
Journal of Ecclesiastical History
, 35/1 (1984).

37
Notes from the archives at Paris and Brussels, in Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, p. 99.

38
MacCulloch,
Thomas Cranmer
, p. 88.

39
Giustinian,
Four Years
I, p. 85.

40
Herbert, sig. A.5.

41
CSP Ven.
IV, 386; Giustinian,
Four Years
I, pp. 85–6; II, p. 312.

42
Starkey,
The Reign of Henry VIII
, p. 125.

43
For further reading, see A. S. MacNalty,
Henry VIII: A Difficult Patient
(1952), pp. 159–65, 198–9; Scarisbrick,
Henry VIII
, pp. 484–7.

44
See D. Cressy, ‘Spectacle and Power: Apollo & Solomon at the Court of Henry VIII’,
History Today
, 32 (1982). Quotation on p. 21.

45
N. Williams,
Henry VIII and his Court
(1971), p. 222.

46
Two Early Tudor Lives
, p. 208.

47
Wyatt,
Poems
, no. CXLIX.

48
Miller,
Henry VIII and the English Nobility
, p. 79.

49
Wilson,
In the Lion’s Court
, p. 216.

50
Lisle Letters
II, p. 92.

51
Bryan,
A Dispraise of the life of a Courtier
,
chapter 15
, sig. K.viii.

52
Wyatt,
Poems
, no. CLI.

53
Poems
, 18.

54
CSP Sp.
V ii, 37.

55
There is a long and complex historiography concerning the fall of Anne Boleyn, especially regarding her alleged guilt, Henry’s belief in it and the role of faction. The account below mainly draws on the interpretations of Eric Ives and David Starkey.

56
CSP Sp.
V ii, 29, 13.

57
Ives,
Anne Boleyn
, p. 337.

58
CSP Sp.
V ii, 43.

59
Abstracted report of Jean de Dinteville, November 1533, in Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, p. 98.

60
CSP Sp.
V i, 170.

61
Ibid. ii, 61.

62
Ibid. i, 170; Starkey,
Rivals in Power
, p. 76.

63
Ellis,
Original Letters
, 1st series II, pp. 59–60; Strype,
Ecclesiastical Memorials
I i, p. 434.

64
Ibid., p. 55 (Ellis); p. 433 (Strype).

65
CSP Sp.
V ii, 55.

66
LP
X, 876. Also
Third Report of the Deputy Keeper
, app. II, pp. 243–5. The full Latin text is printed in the appendix to the first volume of Wriothesley’s
Chronicle
.

67
The Reports of Sir John Spelman
, ed. J. H. Baker, Selden Society, 93–4 (1976–7), I, p. 71.

68
Wriothesley I, pp. 37–8.

69
CSP Sp.
V ii, 55.

70
Third Report of the Deputy Keeper
, app. II, p. 245; Constantyne, p. 66.

71
CSP Sp.
V ii, 55; Starkey,
Six Wives
, p. 580.

72
Lisle Letters
III, p. 365.

73
CSP Sp.
V ii, 55.

74
Notes from the archives at Paris and Brussels, in Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, p. 117.

75
Wyatt,
Poems
, no. CXXIII.

7 So Cruel Prison

1
CSP Sp.
V ii, 55;
Lisle Letters
III, p. 396.

2
Wriothesley I, pp. 50–1. HMC,
Report on the Manuscripts of His Grace The Duke of Rutland
IV (1905), pp. 278–83.

3
CSP Sp.
V ii, 61.

4
The Letters of King Henry VIII
, p. 67.

5
Muir, ‘Unpublished Poems in the Devonshire MS’, no. 7.

6
See Head, ‘Attainder of Lord Thomas Howard’.

7
28 Hen. VIII, c. 24 (
Statutes of the Realm
, p. 680). My italics.

8
LP
XI, 376.

9
Muir, ‘Unpublished Poems in the Devonshire MS’, no. 9.

10
Ellis,
Original Letters
, 3rd series III, p. 136.

11
AH
I, no. 78, lines 35–40. Surrey’s phrase ‘In towre both strong and high’ echoes, or is echoed by, the line ‘this tower ye see is strong and high’, which was part of a poem – possibly a verse letter written by Lady Margaret Douglas to her father in explanation of her actions – that was inscribed by Margaret into the Devonshire Manuscript. See E. Heale, ‘Women and the Courtly Love Lyric: The Devonshire MS (BL Additional 17492)’,
The Modern Language Review
, 90/2 (1995), p. 309.

12
Lisle Letters
III, p. 458; Wriothesley I, p. 53. The chronicler states that Richmond died on 22 July, but 23 July is more likely, for on that day Chapuys wrote: ‘I have just this moment heard that the Duke of Richmond died this morning’ (
LP
XI, 148).

13
CSP Sp.
V ii, 71.

14
Memoir
, p. 20.

15
PRO SP 1/105, fos. 245v–246.

16
BL MS Cottonian Titus B I, fo. 389. See too
CSP Sp.
V ii, 104.

17
LP
XI, 434, 458.

18
Notes from the archives at Paris and Brussels, in Thomas,
The Pilgrim
, p. 113;
LP
XI, 567.

19
Hoyle,
The Pilgrimage of Grace
, p. 48.

20
Wilson,
In the Lion’s Court
, p. 396.

21
The Letters of King Henry VIII
, p. 144.

22
PRO SP 1/116, fo. 20.

23
CSP Sp.
V ii, 104.

24
Bapst, p. 220.

25
LP
XI, 601.

26
Dodds,
Pilgrimage of Grace
I, pp. 259–60;
LP
XI, 864;
The Letters of King Henry VIII,
pp. 147–9.

27
PRO SP 1/110, fo. 6v.

28
Norfolk does not explicitly state that Surrey attended the meeting, but he
was definitely at Doncaster at the time. A few months later Lord Darcy accused Norfolk of favouring the rebels at this meeting. He also slandered Surrey and, though there are no extant details as to what the Earl is supposed to have done, or when he did it, it is probable that it also concerned this meeting.

29
The Letters of King Henry VIII
, p. 145.

30
Ibid., pp. 158–64.

31
R. W. Hoyle, ‘Thomas Master’s Narrative of the Pilgrimage of Grace’,
Northern History
, 21 (1985), pp. 74–5.

32
LP
XII i, 439.

33
Surrey had arrived by 31 March as Norfolk’s letter to Cromwell of that day reveals (PRO SP 1/117, fo. 181).

34
PRO SP 1/118, fo. 216. For part of Norfolk’s schedule, see
LP
XII i, 804.

35
The Letters of King Henry VIII
, pp. 168–9;
Lisle Letters
IV, p. 233.

36
PRO SP 1/110, fo. 6v; 1/116, fo. 30;
LP
XI, 1195; Dodds,
Pilgrimage of Grace
II, p. 64; Brenan and Statham,
The House of Howard
I, pp. 110–11;
CSP Sp.
V ii, 104.

37
Bindoff: Thomas Pope.

38
PRO SP 1/120, fos. 6, 14–15.

39
Ibid., fo. 14v.

40
LP
XII i, 594, 667; Brigden,
New Worlds, Lost Worlds
, p. 148.

41
PRO SP 1/120, fos. 14v–15.

42
Ibid., fos. 66–9.

43
Herbert, p. 428; Bodleian MS Jesus 74, fo. 327v; PRO SP 1/110, fo. 7;
LP
XII i, 1064; Miller,
Henry VIII and the English Nobility
, pp. 61–2.

44
PRO SP 1/105, fo. 8; 1/122, fo. 212.

45
PRO SP 1/122, fo. 235v.

46
Strype,
Ecclesiastical Memorials
II ii, pp. 339–40.

47
This is suggested by Pigman in
Grief and English Renaissance Elegy
, note 2, p. 149.

48
PRO SP 1/122, fo. 235v.

49
PRO SP 1/120, fo. 14v.

50
Herbert, p. 564. Although Mary’s comment follows a discussion of Surrey’s relationship with Edward Seymour, she makes it clear that since 1537 he hated ‘all’ the new men of the Court. Seymour was the man who benefited most from Surrey’s execution and it would be neat indeed if he had been the victim of Surrey’s assault in 1537, but there is no evidence to suggest this. Indeed, far from being the implacable enemies of popular legend, the Seymours and the Howards, at least in the 1530s, had a good relationship. Norfolk proposed his ‘great friend’ Seymour for the stewardship of Abingdon in 1537 and invited him to share his apartments at Hampton Court at the end of October. Surrey and Frances
named their first daughter Jane, probably after the Queen, and Norfolk would stand as godfather to Edward Seymour’s son in May 1539. The two families regularly exchanged gifts and entertained each other; Surrey himself dined or supped at Seymour’s house in the Strand no less than seventeen times in the last three months of 1539, including once on Christmas Eve (Longleat MSS Seymour Papers XVIII, fos. 11v–55v). Nor would it have been wise for Seymour to draw attention to the Pilgrimage of Grace when it was known that Jane had some sympathy for the rebels. Some people point to a poem of Surrey’s which reveals his enmity for Seymour’s wife Anne, but this was probably written in the early 1540s when relations between Surrey and the Seymours had cooled. Indeed the poem is probably so vitriolic precisely because a prior friendship had existed, one which Surrey later believed the Seymours had betrayed. For an excellent debunking of the early Seymour–Howard rivalry myth, see M. L. Bush, ‘The Rise to Power of Edward Seymour, Protector Somerset, 1500–1547’ (Cambridge University Ph.D., 1965), pp. 113–14, 191–3, 424–7.

51
Herbert, p. 564.

52
Holinshed III, p. 820.

53
PRO SP 1/124, fo. 1v.

54
Poems
, 27.

55
Anstis,
Register
II, pp. 408–9.

56
By Sessions, in “Enough Survives”, p. 53. Also see Sessions (1999), pp. 135–9; Berdan,
Early Tudor Poetry
, pp. 544–5; Foley, ‘Honorable Style’, pp. 119–211; Davis, ‘Contexts’, pp. 51–3.

57
Poems
, 26. For further reading, see Sessions (1999), pp. 132–5 and Foley, ‘Honorable Style’, pp. 101–5.

8 En Famille

1
PRO SP 1/125, fo. 140.

2
LP
XII ii, 911.

3
The Manuscript of William Dunche
, ed. A. G. W. Murray and E. F. Bosanquet (Exeter, 1914), pp. 17, 20.

4
Head,
Ebbs and Flows
, pp. 149–50.

5
Longleat MSS Misc. XVIII, fo. 23v (supper, 11 Nov.), fo. 27 (supper, 17 Nov.), fo. 29 (dinner, 21 Nov.), fo. 31 (supper, 24 Nov.);
LP
XIII i, 646 (48); XIII ii, 399.

6
PRO LR 2/115, fos. 23–4.

7
PRO SP 1/227, f. 129.

8
BL Cottonian MS Titus B I, fo. 390. See too Norfolk’s letter to Henry VIII of May 1537, where he argues that he had summoned Surrey to the North
so that he could accompany him ‘hunting, hawking,
playing at cards
, shooting & other pastimes’.

9
PRO PROB 11/30, fo. 193; BL Harleian MS 283, fo. 329; BL Cottonian MS Titus B II, fo. 39.

10
Among others, Surrey borrowed from the Prior of Bury St Edmunds (see
chapter 6
), his servant Richard Fulmerston (PRO SP 1/209, fo. 128), his father’s treasurer Thomas Hussey (ibid.), and John Spencer of Norwich (PRO LR 2/115, fo. 76). On the death of Sir Richard Cromwell in 1544, a list of his debtors included ‘my Lord of Surrey’, who owed him money ‘for a jennet’ (BL Additional MS 34393, fo. 45).

11
PRO SP 1/120, fo. 6.

12
PRO SP 1/131, fo. 36. Also see Mary’s letter to her father in BL Cottonian MS Vespasian F XIII, fo. 75.

13
LP
XIV i, 651 (29), 1355; XVI i, 400.

14
Wood,
Letters
II, p. 375.

15
Spanish Chronicle
, p. 142; Herbert, p. 564. The Duke of Norfolk was also concerned about Mary’s conduct. In November 1536 he feared that if Mary was ‘out of my company, she might bestow herself otherwise than I would she should’ (Wood,
Letters
II, p. 374).

16
Poems
, 9.