Mary Tudor (57 page)

^[101]
L&P
, XXI, 802.

^[102]
L&P
, XXI, 675, 684. Scarisbrick,
Henry VIII
, p. 495. Neither Catherine nor Mary had been admitted to his chamber since Christmas.

^[103]
T. Rymer,
Foedera
(1704-35), XV, p. 117.

^[104]
W. K. Jordan,
Edward VI: The Young King
(1968), pp. 52-3.

^[105]
Charles returned the greetings that were sent to him in the name of the new king, without acknowledging his title, writing to Van der Delft: ‘We went no further than this with regard to the young king, in order to avoid saying anything which might prejudice the right that our cousin the Princess might advance to the throne.’
Cal. Span
., IX, p. 38.

^[106]
The Act of Succession (35 Henry VIII, c.1) had specified that the king’s will should be ‘signed with his most gracious hand’, whereas in fact it had been stamped. This was a fully recognised method of authenticating documents when the king was incapacitated, but it was challenged by Maitland of Lethington in 1566 in the interest of Mary Queen of Scots. G. Burnet,
The Historie of the Reformation of the Church of England
(1679), I, p. 267. See also E. W. Ives, ‘Henry VIII’s Will: A Forensic Conundrum’,
Historical Journal
, 35 (1992), pp. 779-804.

^[107]
College of Arms MSS, I, 7, f. 29. J. G. Nichols (ed.),
The Literary Remains of King Edward VI
(1857), I, p. lxxvii.

^[108]
APC
, II, p. 16.

^[109]
TNA SP10 /1, no. 11. This is a rough draft, with proposed grants of land also inserted.

^[110]
TNA SP10/6, no. 14. Deposition of William Parr, Marquis of Northampton, January 1549.

^[111]
Van der Delft to the Emperor, to July 1547.
Cal. Span
., IX, p. 123.

^[112]
Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Edward VI
, II, p. 20.

^[113]
TNA SP10/6, no. 10. Deposition of John Fowler, January 1549.

^[114]
APC
, II, pp. 84, 86, 92, 100, 120, 122, 141. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, pp. 138-9.

^[115]
APC
, II, pp. 63-4,13 March 1547. Jordan,
Edward VI
, pp. 72-3.

^[116]
A J. Slavin, ‘The Fall of Lord Chancellor Wriothesley: A Study in the Politics of Conspiracy’,
Albion
, 7 (1975) pp. 265-85. Loades,
John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland
(1996) pp. 92-5.

^[117]
Burnet,
Historie of the Reformation
, II, p. 115, reproduces the text of the protector’s letter.

^[118]
Ibid. Gardiner’s views on the same subject can be seen in letters that he wrote from the Fleet Prison between 14 October and 4 December 1547. J. A. Muller (ed.),
The Letters of Stephen Gardiner
(1933), pp. 379-428.

^[119]
Loades,
Mary Tudor
, pp. 144-5.

^[120]
Van der Delft to the Emperor, 16 June 1547.
Cal. Span
., IX, p. 100.

^[121]
For a full discussion of the failure of the protector’s policy in Scotland, see M. L. Bush,
The Government Policy of Protector Somerset
(1975), pp. 32-40.

^[122]
TNA SP10/6, no. 21.

^[123]
TNA SP10/6, nos. 7-22. Depositions taken relating to the charges against the lord admiral.

^[124]
G. W. Bernard, ‘The Downfall of Sir Thomas Seymour’, in G. W. Bernard (ed.),
The Tudor Nobility
(1992), pp. 212-40.

^[125]
He had been sent to the Tower in June 1548, having preached before the king on the 29th. He remained there until released by Mary in August 1553, having been deprived of his bishopric in 1552. J. A. Muller,
Letters
, p. 439. Redworth,
In Defence of the Church Catholic
, pp. 285-90.

^[126]
APC
, II, p. 291.

^[127]
Mary to the council, 22 June 1549. Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 146. She did not claim that her conscience was superior to the law, but that the law was defective owing to some (fictitious) pressure that had been applied to Parliament.

^[128]
Emperor to Van der Delft, to May 1549.
Cal. Span
., IX, p. 375.

^[129]
Jordan,
Edward VI
, pp. 206-9.
Cal. Span
., IX, pp. 406-8, 19 July 1549.

^[130]
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.

^[131]
Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p. 149.

^[132]
For a full discussion of the circumstances of Somerset’s fall in October 1549, see Loades,
John Dudley
, pp. 130-39.

^[133]
Dale Hoak,
The King’s Council in the Reign of Edward VI
(1976), pp. 54-61.

^[134]
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.

^[135]
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.

^[136]
Van der Delft to the Emperor, 14 January and 18 March 1550.
Cal. Span
., X, pp. 6, 40.

^[137]
W. K. Jordan,
Edward VI: The Threshold of Power
(1970), pp. 120-22.

^[138]
Van der Delft to the Emperor, 2 May 1550.
Cal. Span
., X, 80.

^[139]
Cal. Span
., X, pp. 124-35. Charles had approved the plan on 21 June.

^[140]
Dubois report, ibid., p. 127.

^[141]
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.

^[142]
W. K. Jordan (ed.),
The Chronicle and Political Papers of King Edward VI
(1966), p. 40.

^[143]
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.

^[144]
APC
, III, p. 171.

^[145]
John Foxe,
Acts and Monuments of the English Martyrs
(1583), pp. 1,335-7.

^[146]
Scheyfve to Mary, January/February 1551.
Cal. Span
., X, p. 428.

^[147]
Jordan,
Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI
, p. 55.

^[148]
Loades,
Mary Tudor
, p.163.

^[149]
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.