Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth (22 page)

III

EDUCATING FOR RULE

CHAPTER 7

A CULTURE OF REVERENCE: PRINCESS MARY’S HOUSEHOLD 1525–27

Jeri L. McIntosh

I

In the winter of 1536, Robert Aske, one of the ringleaders of a grassroots rebellion against the Henrician Reformation, found himself subjected to an intense interrogation by government officials. The rebellion, known as the “Pilgrimage of Grace,” had seriously alarmed king and government.
¹
Officials questioning Aske in the aftermath of the rebellion’s suppression and Aske’s capture focused on his constitutional views on crown power and the royal succession.
²
One of the demands of the “Pilgrimage” rebels was the restoration of the recently disinherited Princess Mary to the royal succession. When questioned about this rebel demand, Aske claimed that Henry VIII had placed the sovereignty of the English nation at risk by successfully pushing through Parliamentary legislation that disinherited his eldest daughter, Mary—recognized widely within England and Europe as the most credible claimant to the crown by right of blood.
³
For Aske, the issue hinged on Henry VIII’s right to declare the next successor to the crown. As Aske pointed out, no other monarch ever had such prerogative and no other person in the realm had the power to overturn common law when it came to the inheritance of real property.
⁴
If Mary was disinherited and the king’s younger daughter, Elizabeth, was derided by many in Catholic Europe as illegitimate, then the way was open for the Scottish king (the “alien,” as Aske called him), the nephew of Henry VIII, to make a credible claim to the English throne.
⁵
Although most Englishmen could accommodate a Scottish succession in 1603 after the death of Elizabeth I, in 1536 the English polity was not yet supportive of such a political future. Aske’s enthusiasm for Mary’s succession rights derived in part from this fear of a Scottish succession and his belief in her legitimacy as the issue of the valid union of her parents, Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII.

This essay will argue that there was another element factoring into Aske’s and the rebels’ support for Mary’s succession rights: her status as the de facto (rather than de jure) Prince(ss) of Wales. Evidence for Mary’s status during the late 1520s–30s (before the birth of the future Edward VI) is found in household documents relating to her vice-regal household in the Welsh Marches in 1525–27, in a printed representation of her Welsh court by her French tutor, Giles Duwes, and in her household accounts of the mid-1530s.

The demand by the “Pilgrimage” rebels for Mary’s restoration to the crown, therefore, may have been more than a nostalgic longing for the king to return to his original family (Catherine of Aragon and the Princess Mary). The demand may also have been an astute recognition of the current political reality: Mary was too firmly identified in the public mind as the next English sovereign to be replaced by anyone not the king’s undoubted legitimate male offspring. As Robert Aske pointed out during interrogation, to undermine Mary’s legal status (after her tour of duty in the Welsh Marches) meant putting national security at risk.
⁶
I argue here that Mary became a positive historical irony before the birth of her half-brother, Prince Edward in 1537. Until that time, her stint in the Welsh Marches as the de facto Prince(ss) of Wales meant that her technical status as “heiress presumptive” (normal for female heiresses who were usually little more than place-holders for unborn male heirs) was belied by her real status as “heiress apparent,” that is, the next sovereign of England after Henry VIII.

II

The historical context for Henry VIII’s decision to send Mary to Wales can be summarized as follows: it was to Henry’s advantage for a short period in 1525 to support, very ostentatiously, Mary’s status as his successor after the victory of her betrothed, Charles V, at Pavia.
⁷
This political context of Henry’s uncharacteristic support of a female succession had evaporated by the time Mary left for the Welsh Marches in August 1525 (when Charles V repudiated the betrothal and married Isabel of Portugal), but by then the household had been assembled.
⁸
Moreover, there was a distinct lack of crown representation in Wales following the death of Sir Rhys ap Thomas in South Wales and the recall in North Wales of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk.
⁹
As the Instructions for Mary’s household made clear, from the English crown’s viewpoint, Wales needed its English prince(ss) in order to be governed properly:

Inasmuch as by reason of the long absence of any Prince making continuall residence eyther in the principalitie of Wales or in the marches of the same, the good order quiet and tranquilitie of the Countreyes thereabout hath greatlie bene alterd [sic] and subverted and the due adminstracõn of Justice by meanes of sondry contraireties hitherto hindered and neglected...The kings highness therefore by mature deliberac[i]on and substanciall advise of his counsayle hath determined to send at this tyme his deerest most beloved and onely doughter the Princesse accompained and esteblished with an honorable, sadd discreete, expert counsayle to reside and remayne in the Marches of Wales.
¹⁰

Mary’s household was not simply lavish, it was intended to serve as a vice-regal court. Mary’s household cost the king nearly £4,500 per annum.
¹¹
This was nearly three times what her household normally cost the king.
¹²
As this essay will detail, the nine-year-old princess presided over much more than one or two well-appointed manor houses. It was a royal vice-regal court with jurisdictional, tenurial, and cultural authority. Mary was invested as the nominal head of a privy council whose jurisdictional authority in the marches was second only to that of the king’s bench in Westminster. Mary’s household council was also her royal privy council. Henry granted to this council sweeping jurisdictional authority within Wales and the nearby marches.
¹³

It is worth pausing here to note that Mary’s status as the de facto “prince(ss) of Wales” was unique in English history. Other female heirs apparent such as Princess Charlotte, the daughter of George IV, or Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II), daughter of George VI, did not enjoy a similar status to Mary. Most English princesses had to content themselves with being sisters to the “Prince of Wales.” For instance, Mary’s half-sister, Elizabeth, never enjoyed a pre-accession household and consequent status approaching that of Mary in 1525. Elizabeth’s most lavish household was the one Henry conferred on her soon after her birth in 1533 but even in this instance, she had to share the establishment with the now-demoted Mary.
¹⁴
Later in 1558, Elizabeth would complain to the Spanish ambassador that she never had the landed or household revenues commensurate with her rank.
¹⁵
Before her accession, Elizabeth never presided over a vice-regal court as Mary did in 1525.

As a nine-year-old child, and a female one at that, Mary’s ability to wield actual authority was severely compromised. She was the nominal head of her privy council but it was John Vosey, Bishop of Exeter, who was the president of the “princes[s’] council.”
¹⁶
Another very significant aspect that placed Mary essentially in wardship to her nominal authority was her title to landed estates granted to her by the king. That Mary was a landed magnate from the age of nine has been obscured by the lack of surviving patent rolls from the 1530s for scholars to consult. However, the instructions issued for Mary’s household make clear that she did, in fact, hold crown estates in her own name and title. The instructions, preserved in the Cotton collection in the British Library, clearly state that Mary held title to lands “for the supportation and maintenance of the charges for the estate and household of the said Princess.”
¹⁷
According to these instructions, Richard Sydnor, Mary’s long-serving household treasurer, would also serve as royal surveyor. Part of his duties, as detailed in the instructions, was to survey the lands “nowe assigned to the lady Princess.”
¹⁸
The term “assigned” puts the matter beyond doubt since land grants were often referred to as “assignments.”
¹⁹
Further, the Instructions helpfully identified the estates Mary held as the counties of Bromfield, Yale, and Chirkland.
²⁰
These were counties that were traditionally granted to the Prince of Wales in addition to the principality (which Mary as a female could not officially receive as a formal grant from the crown).
²¹

That Mary received a grant of estates, especially these counties, is significant. These lands were traditionally reserved for the king’s eldest son, the Prince of Wales, who served his political apprenticeship by holding court on the Welsh Marches and exercising authority as a landed magnate. Although Mary’s authority was much more limited than that exercised by males formally invested with the Welsh principality, it did extend nominally over the tenants and clients associated with the counties of Bromfield, Yale, and Chirkland.

Mary was not the first non-prince to hold these lands as a landed magnate charged with implementing policy and justice originating in Westminster. The last person, before Mary, to hold these counties (though only in stewardship to the crow n) was Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his bid to become the crown agent in North Wales.
²²
After Mary ceased to hold them, Henry VIII granted them to his bastard son, Henry Fitzroy. Fitzroy held these counties from 1529 until 1536, the year of his premature death.
²³
As he did in Mary’s case, the king granted these estates to Fitzroy in 1529 in part to lend him credibility as a potential heir, who could never hold the title of Prince of Wales (due to his illegitimacy).

Mary’s status as a landed magnate during her tour of duty in the Welsh Marches is highly significant. Although it is unlikely that, as a nine-year-old, Mary wielded more than a nominal authority over her tenants, she did, nevertheless, have tenants. Her tenants were under her direct nominal authority. Moreover, the tenants of these particular counties— Bromfield, Chirkland, and Yale—traditionally acknowledged the overlordship of the king’s designated agent, usually the Prince of Wales, or the next heir to the English throne (though on occasion these counties would pass out of crown hands usually to an agent representing crown interests).
²⁴
By entrusting these particular counties to Mary, the king was sending the strongest signal possible, given Mary’s gender, that she was, nevertheless, the next sovereign of England. Mary’s status as the king’s heir had been undermined, firstly by Charles V’s repudiation of her as his bride, and secondly by Henry’s decision (c.1527) to annul his own marriage to Catherine of Aragon with the aim of disinheriting Mary as the issue of that marriage. Despite those developments, Mary’s credibility as a future ruler was permanently reinforced by the grant of these estates. She was from this moment more than just the king’s daughter, more than a stand-in for a male Prince of Wales, she was now also a landowner. Like her male contemporaries (including her half-brother Henry Fitzroy), the young princess enjoyed the political status that automatically came with land ownership in this period. As will be discussed below, young as she was, Mary apparently grasped at the time that her position as estate holder and de facto Prince(ss) of Wales endowed her with patronage opportunities and significant political status. In 1525, Mary was more than simply the next sovereign-in-waiting. She was the actual overlord of Bromfield, Chirkland, and Yale. She was the vice-regal figure appointed by the crown to administer the Welsh Principality. As the next section of this essay will detail, she was also at the center of a rich court culture as were many other contemporary sovereigns, rulers, and princes.

III

Mary’s Welsh household, like other regal courts, was more than just a center of jurisdictional authority; it was also a stage of political theater. A set of instructions drawn up for Mary’s household stipulates that all those who attended her household court should “by meanes of good hospitality [be] refreshed.”
²⁵
And apparently they were treated to all the hospitality that one could expect at a royal court. Like all such courts, Mary’s household was expected to host lavish Christmastide festivities. A letter survives from John Vosey, president of Mary’s privy council, to Cardinal Wolsey asking Wolsey just how lavish were the Christmas through Twelfth Night festivities supposed to be.
²⁶

The young Mary would, of course, have been at the center of these festivities. As a child, her participation may have been limited but the festivities and the court were convened in her name. When present, Mary would have been the object of elaborate political ritual that would likely have impressed onlookers. As specified in the Instructions, her privy chamber attendants were to conduct themselves “sadlei, honorable, vertuously and discreetly in words, co[u]ntenance, gesture, [and] behavior” toward their young mistress.
²⁷
Moreover, her attendants were to treat her with humble “reverence” as “due and requisite” to her station as Prince(ss) of Wales and, all things being equal, the next sovereign of England.
²⁸

The elaborate deference with which household members were to treat Mary, as stipulated by the Instructions, also found expression in a literary culture specific to this household. Mary’s French tutor, Giles Duwes, published a seemingly innocuous French language manual in 1534, 
An
Introductory for to Learn to Read, to Pronounce, and to Speak French
...
²⁹
It was much more than a language manual. It was heavy with political intent. At a time when Henry VIII had started a new family with Anne Boleyn and had overseen the disinheritance of his elder daughter, Duwes printed a book in which the disgraced Mary was portrayed as the animating and sovereign center of an important, international court. Duwes was conjuring the Welsh household of the mid-1520s for his readers in 1534, on the eve of the “Pilgrimage of Grace.” Duwes, however, was no martyr for the Aragonese cause. To counteract the political implications of the manual, Duwes dedicated it to the new queen, Anne Boleyn. In a further attempt to undermine the implied political agenda of the piece, Duwes claimed he had little choice but to publish it since Mary had commissioned it. In a wonderfully disingenuous ploy to disclaim any particular loyalty to Mary, Duwes stated that he was forced to obey: “bycause of myn obedience/than by any seruice or sacrifyce that to her I may do/fulfyllyng her most noble and gracious comandement...”
³⁰
While ostensibly avoiding any political rip tides generated by the Boleyn marriage, Duwes nevertheless assigned to Mary an inexorable royal prestige at odds with her demoted status in relation to the newborn Princess Elizabeth. As if this endorsement of Mary as the princess of England was not enough to broadcast Duwes’ political and religious orientation, the manual contained a purported lesson on the importance of the Latin mass offered to Mary by her almoner.
³¹