QUEENSHIP AND POWER

ELIZABETH OF YORK AND

HER SIX DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW
Fashioning Tudor Queenship, 1485–1547

Retha M. Warnicke
 Queenship and Power

Series editors
Charles Beem
University of North Carolina, Pembroke
Pembroke, USA

Carole Levin
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, USA
This series focuses on works specializing in gender analysis, women’s
studies, literary interpretation, and cultural, political, constitutional,
and diplomatic history. It aims to broaden our understanding of the
strategies that queens—both consorts and regnants, as well as female
regents—pursued in order to wield political power within the structures
of male-dominant societies. The works describe queenship in Europe as
well as many other parts of the world, including East Asia, Sub-Saharan
Africa, and Islamic civilization.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14523
 Retha M. Warnicke

Elizabeth of
York and Her Six
Daughters-in-Law
Fashioning Tudor Queenship, 1485–1547
Retha M. Warnicke
SHPRS, Arizona State University
Tempe
AZ, USA

Queenship and Power

ISBN 978-3-319-56380-0 ISBN 978-3-319-56381-7  (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936930

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Cover Photograph

The cover photograph is of the altar in the splendid Lady Chapel

at Westminster Abbey, the monuments of which Pietro Torregiano
designed for Henry VII, who is buried there with his wife, Elizabeth
of York, and his mother, Margaret Tudor, countess of Richmond. Also
interred in that chapel are their descendants, the first three queens reg-
nant of the British Isles: Mary I, Elizabeth I, and Mary, queen of Scots.
Religious celebrations link five of the Tudor queens consort personally
to the abbey. Besides her burial, Elizabeth of York was also married and
crowned at the abbey. Two of her six daughters-in-law, Katherine of
Aragon and Anne Boleyn, participated in their coronations there as well.
Jane Seymour’s coronation was scheduled for late 1537, but she died
prematurely after childbirth that October. With Henry VIII and numer-
ous attendants, she had, however, heard a special Corpus Christi mass at
the abbey in 1536. Anne of Cleves, like the first Tudor consort, is also
buried there. While Katherine Howard and Katherine Parr might not
have attended official abbey functions, they were both at Westminster
often enough to be quite familiar, as were all consorts, with the exterior
of this magnificent structure. Often called the House of Kings, it is surely
also the House of Queens.

v
 Acknowledgements

In the late 1970s, I decided to research the impact of the Renaissance

and the Reformation on early modern Englishwomen. Consequently, I
became interested in Christian humanism and religious reform, topics
that led to my publication in 1983 of Women of the English Renaissance
and Reformation. Subsequently, I began to focus on queenship and
wrote separate books on Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, and Mary, queen
of Scots. In 2012, Palgrave Macmillan published Wicked Women of Tudor
England, which updated my ideas on Anne Boleyn, offered a revision-
ist view of Katherine Howard, discussed the relationships of Anne
Seymour, duchess of Somerset, to her husband and to Katherine Parr,
evaluated the relationships of Lettice Dudley, countess of Leicester, to
her husband as well as to Elizabeth I, and turned again to the adher-
ents of Christian humanism to study how scholars’ attitudes toward Sir
Thomas More resulted in their forming negative opinions about his two
wives. During those years, I also coedited with my colleague, Professor
Bettie Anne Doebler, nine seventeenth-century funeral sermons for
women. Although I needed to complete extensive new research for this
present book, it was useful that I could draw on my ongoing accumula-
tion of knowledge about elite early modern women and even use some
of my original archival material. Thus, this book builds on nearly forty
years of research and writing, for which I am indebted to the support
and assistance of many people at conferences, especially the Pacific Coast
Conference on British Studies, and at various institutions. In the United

vii
viii  Acknowledgements

States, I completed research at Widener Library, at the Huntington

Library, and at my university library. In the United Kingdom, I spent
most of my time at the National Archives (the former Public Record
Office) and at the British Library, but I also made trips to the Bodleian
Library and to the Royal College of Music in London.
Those people who have given me assistance are too numerous to
name, but I should especially like to thank Robert Bjork, director of the
Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, for his and his
center’s support. I also wish to thank Carole Levin and Charles Beem,
coeditors of this series, Queens & Power, for their encouragement of my
scholarship. I am delighted to have two books published in this series,
as well as eventually four chapters in edited books. Finally, my fam-
ily has been a great source of support: my husband, Ronald, my son
Robert and his wife, Cynthia, and my daughter Margaretha Bentley and
her husband, Paul. I hereby dedicate this book to their children: Winter
Gonzales Warnicke, age twelve; Coleman Paul Bentley, age two; and his
sister, Grace Kathryn, age fifteen, who have been a great source of joy for
their grandparents. They were born into a world in which the Parliament
of the United Kingdom finally agreed that the firstborn child of a reign-
ing monarch, regardless of its sex, could succeed to the throne. Since
Empress Matilda’s failed attempt to become queen regnant despite the
support of her father Henry I, who died in 1135, it only took about nine
centuries for members of Parliament to come to this momentous deci-
sion! In the meantime, many royal women have demonstrated that they
could successfully handle the position of queen consort—no small task,
as this book has shown.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Marriages and Coronations  17

3 Income and Expenditures  59

4 Religion and Family Life  97

5 Governance and Patronage  133

6 Revels and Celebrations  173

7 Death and Burial  203

8 Conclusion 241

Further Reading  251

Index 
269

ix
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Queens consort in late medieval and early modern England performed

significant and essential court roles. Their subjects viewed them as exem-
plars of womanhood, providing models for their female subjects to fol-
low. When foreign born, their presence embodied diplomatic as well
as cultural and financial dimensions. Even if native Englishwomen,
they could develop friendships with foreigners, especially ambassadors.
Because other court residents assumed they had great influence over
their husbands, they could find themselves in difficulty if and when dis-
satisfaction with crown policies emerged. Many critics hesitated to blame
monarchs for issues of misgovernment from fear of arrest for treason, but
they sometimes targeted their so-called evil councilors instead. If their
queens had not restricted their behavior to acting as “pious intercessors
and charitable benefactors,” they might find themselves named among
the “evil councilors.”1 Giving birth to royal heirs remained, of course,
their most important familial duty. Delivering sons early enough in their
marriages for them to reach adulthood before their fathers died consti-
tuted a major triumph. The consorts’ other important roles included
appointing numerous officials to handle household and financial admin-
istration; collecting honorable female attendants; supervising various
family matters; relying on churchmen and almoners for spiritual support;
patronizing individuals; both lay and religious; participating in various
royal rituals; and attending to other public duties, such as acting as inter-
cessors or regents.

© The Author(s) 2017 1

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_1
2  R.M. WARNICKE

This book will delineate queenship in these areas, but before going
into more details about their reigns, this chapter will first examine some
of the issues with which they and their husbands dealt. Since many
authors have published books and articles about the Tudor consorts
whom modern media have also made famous, only the biographical data
needed to define their reigns is included in this study, which will defi-
nitely not provide another set of complete biographies. Instead, it fash-
ions Tudor queenship and provides a comparative analysis of the royal
accomplishments of Elizabeth of York and her six daughters-in-law.
Until the first Yorkist monarch, Edward IV, married Elizabeth Grey,
whose father, Richard Woodville, first Earl Rivers, and deceased hus-
band, Sir John Grey, had supported the Lancastrian cause, reigning
English kings had since the Norman conquest selected foreign-born
wives. Henry VII followed Edward IV’s example by also marrying
an Englishwoman. After Richard III seized the throne of his neph-
ews, Edward V and Richard, duke of York and Norfolk, their mother,
Elizabeth, agreed to negotiate a marriage alliance with Margaret, coun-
tess of Richmond, the mother of Henry Tudor. As the best Lancastrian
claimant in England, Lady Richmond sought arrangements for her son
to marry the dowager’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York, who was
viewed by some contemporaries as the best Yorkist claimant since her
brothers’ whereabouts remained unknown. When and if Henry suc-
ceeded in conquering Richard, the crown would pass on to the victor,
who had sworn an oath to marry Elizabeth of York.
After winning at Bosworth Field in 1485 with some Yorkist sup-
port, Henry kept his promise to wed her. Indeed, even without his
oath and their mothers’ alliance, Henry would have chosen her as his
bride because he could not have permitted her to wed any other man
who might try to use her royal claim and challenge him for the throne.
He married her publicly in January 1486 at Westminster Abbey, but no
official festivities accompanied the wedding. Subsequently, Henry and
Elizabeth had three children who lived to adulthood, only one of whom
was a son, the future Henry VIII. His older brother, Arthur, prince of
Wales, had died in 1502 at the age of fifteen.
Of his six wives, religious and political circumstances led Henry VIII
to marry only two foreign-born consorts, Katherine of Aragon and Anne
of Cleves. The weddings to them followed slightly different arrange-
ments than those for the more private unions with his English subjects,
Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Katherine Howard, and Katherine Parr.
 1 INTRODUCTION  3

When monarchs decided to seek a wife, they usually required their

councilors to identify a pool of appropriate royal and noble foreign-
ers and to conduct the necessary negotiations with their governments.
In 1539, Henry VIII’s advisors followed these customary procedures
that led to the choice of Anne of Cleves as his new queen, but in 1509,
he had not adopted these procedures for his marriage to Katherine of
Aragon; the reasons for this deviation will be explained below. Usually,
after the two governments endorsed a marriage alliance, elaborate, some-
what chivalric conventions accompanied the subsequent arrangements. If
the king had not previously met his future bride, a portrait of her had to
be obtained, and lavish welcoming ceremonies, including an incognito
meeting and then the wedding and festivities had to be arranged. This
marriage would usually provide the king a dowry, transferring important
foreign funds to England. Not all these procedures actually accompa-
nied Henry’s marriage to Anne of Cleves whose dowry the crown waived
because of her brother, Duke William of Cleves’s, poverty and whom the
king chose to marry privately at court without public celebrations.
As to the entirely different arrangements for his marriage to Katherine
of Aragon, his father, Henry VII, had already welcomed her in 1501
with elaborate receptions and a public wedding at St. Paul’s Cathedral
when she married Arthur, prince of Wales. Later, the king’s diplomats
obtained a papal dispensation from Julius II for her to wed Arthur’s
younger brother, the new prince of Wales. For political and diplo-
matic reasons, Henry VII delayed their wedding, leaving her to remain
in England as the widowed princess of Wales until 1509, when her
betrothed succeeded as king and accepted her as his bride. Consequently,
although Henry VIII did keep her dowry, he mostly treated the arrange-
ments for his marriage to her as he did those to his other wives.
Contemporaries often viewed second marriages as bigamous, and the
ritual differed somewhat from that of a first union. After the priest pro-
nounced them husband and wife, they heard mass, but four ecclesiastics did
not, as usual, hold the canopy or care-cloth over the couple’s heads, as in
first marriages. In fact, this divergence in ritual actually occurred in all six of
Henry’s weddings. Despite the noted differences in the matchmaking pro-
cess between that of Katherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves to highlight
the former’s importance as a member of the Spanish royal dynasty—and
surely to save on expenses—Henry shared his coronation with her shortly
after their wedding in 1509. Thus, without exception, he failed to marry a
foreign wife following the customary diplomatic and ceremonial procedures.
4  R.M. WARNICKE

When they selected foreign wives, kings often had to manage ­family
relationships that complicated diplomatic matters. Rulers such as
Ferdinand II of Aragon expected their daughters to urge their husbands
to favor their native land above all others. Indeed, the new queen of
England in 1509 at first acted as her father’s ambassador. Furthermore,
these foreigners often brought ladies with them to their new home,
expecting to marry them to wealthy noblemen. Occasionally monarchs
expelled some of these attendants from their kingdoms, hoping thereby
to decrease the expenses of their wives’ household, and also perhaps to
avoid the attendants’ continuing influence on their brides, as well as limit
the number of strangers at court who might act as spies for their home-
land.
In The Education of a Christian Prince, printed in 1516, which was
written as an instructional tool for Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor,
and for Ferdinand I, his brother and successor to the Imperial throne,
Erasmus denounced marriage alliances between realms. Not only did
they usually fail to result in long-lasting peaceful relations between the
two principals involved, but they also placed the women in vulnerable
positions in their new kingdoms, far from their families and friends.2
Thus, they had to acclimate themselves to a somewhat different culture
and, in the case of England, to learn a new language as they became
acquainted with their husband, his family, and courtiers.
Even so, both Katherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves, while react-
ing differently to their annulment proceedings from Henry VIII
escaped with their lives, perhaps partly because of diplomatic considera-
tions. Although they lost their queenship, they possessed supporters in
England and abroad who could protest any physical abuse of them. It
was also true that while Katherine’s decision not to quietly accept an
annulment outraged Henry, he did not blame her for failing to present
him with surviving sons or Anne of Cleves for his impotence. Instead,
he blamed his marriage to his brother’s widow and the previous marital
contract between Anne of Cleves and Francis, heir of Antoine I, duke of
Lorraine, for the denial to him of that longed-for male heir.
His English consorts actually faced greater dangers than the foreign-
ers. In choosing four of his subjects, he seems at first to have looked for
virgins to ensure their sexual purity, as childbirth loomed large as their
foremost duty. Crown officials later, of course, accused two of the wives,
Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, of adultery. An attack on a con-
sort’s honor, like theirs, resulted in negative and divisive reverberations
 1 INTRODUCTION  5

concerning the Tudor monarchy, not only at court but also across
England and even Christendom.
Henry’s personal decisions, when he decided to end his marriages
and then choose new fiancées who awaited the end of his marital dis-
putes, also led to political complications. Unlike the Stuart king, Charles
II, who foisted his mistresses on Catherine of Braganza, Henry decided
to remove from court his future wives, three of them the female attend-
ants of his soon-to-be discarded consort. Their presence on the court’s
fringes, especially in the case of Henry’s lengthy struggle with Clement
VII to win an annulment from Katherine of Aragon and marry Anne
Boleyn, could and did disrupt the usual patterns of royal life. Some
advantages did accompany his decision to marry his subjects, as he
thereby increased the number of his loyal relatives without enlarging
the pool of royal claimants.3 Thus, members of the Boleyn, Seymour,
Howard, and Parr families, all descendants of Edward I, added aristo-
cratic family support for his rule. Politically ambitious aristocratic fami-
lies worked to obtain close relationships with their kings, their major
ministers, and their queens. Although the Howards had remained sup-
portive of Henry during the executions of their female relatives, Anne
Boleyn and Katherine, Henry turned against them at the end of his reign
over issues concerning the appointment of a council to rule for his heir,
Edward, the son of Jane Seymour. Henry believed that he could trust
Edward Seymour, earl of Hertford (future duke of Somerset) to protect
the kingship of Edward, who was the son of his sister, Jane Seymour.
Thus, Hertford, unlike Richard III, had no personal claim to his neph-
ew’s throne. The succession of Richard still echoed as a warning to the
royal family.
Their subjects expected their kings to select wives of high social sta-
tus first and foremost for the purpose of siring sons and continuing their
dynasty’s control of their realm.4 The candidates chosen held great sig-
nificance since contemporaries assumed that the worthiness of their line-
age would enhance the crown’s status not only in England but also in
Christendom. The queens would also provide an additional elite ances-
try for the children and bequeath that status to them. A new dynasty
headed by Henry VII, whose hereditary claim to the throne was some-
what weak, needed and sought this added public honor for its heirs.
The consorts, it was expected, would hold at least two other noble
familial positions: as daughters of rulers, if not kings, and as moth-
ers of the dynasty’s heir. Some might possess other familial roles,
6  R.M. WARNICKE

such as their status as siblings and perhaps as widows. Among the Tudor
­consorts, only Elizabeth of York, as the daughter of Edward IV and the
mother of Henry VIII, met the two expected qualifications. As is well
known, Henry VIII’s first consort, Katherine of Aragon, failed to give
birth to a surviving son, and the four Englishwomen he wed entered the
world as daughters of gentlemen, although all had distant royal ances-
try. Ultimately, two wives, Anne of Cleves and Katherine Parr, survived
him, but only Katherine gained recognition as his dowager queen.
English royal dowagers like her usually lived on their dower or jointure
estates, exercising only the authority arising from their possession of that
­property.5
The coronation ceremony, a religious and political ritual signifying
the blessings of the church upon the dynasty, offered the most important
way for demonstrating the queens’ sovereignty publicly. Only three of the
Tudor queens gained this recognition: Elizabeth of York, already mother
of Arthur, Katherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn. As noted, Katherine
shared Henry’s coronation ceremony. At her service, Anne Boleyn was
visibly pregnant with a fetus that Henry futilely hoped was male.
The custom of consecrating queens had emerged on the continent
by the eighth century and had spread to England in the tenth century,
although it is not certain that all subsequent Anglo-Saxon queens had
coronations since the documentation is rather limited.6 As to the ring
traditionally given to the queen in the ceremony, Pauline Stafford has
observed that it was not a marital one. It actually “paralleled her hus-
band’s in the symbolism of the protection of her people, in her case espe-
cially of their Christian faith.”7 Kings gained praise and recognition as
God’s lieutenants on earth. In 1610, John Guillem expressed this view:
they represented “visible images” of the “King of Heaven” and “all
degrees of nobility” as “many beams” issued from the royal majesty.8
When favoring their consorts with this ritual, kings did not intend to ele-
vate them to a par with themselves. Although recognizing the queens’
dependence, the ceremony still clearly celebrated their deep religious
significance and could be viewed as associating them with the queen of
heaven, the Virgin Mary. Indeed, by the twelfth century, medieval con-
sorts had begun acting as intercessors for individuals, some of whom the
crown had accused of felonies and treason, making it possible for their
husbands to offer largess or pardons without appearing politically weak
or indecisive.9 At that time, queens viewed intercession “as a means to
sustain perceptions of their influence.”10 In the Tudor period, these seem
 1 INTRODUCTION  7

to have become staged events, and the queens themselves might not
have initiated the process.11
At the top of the aristocratic hierarchy, monarchs and their wives
reigned as the first family over families of lesser social status. The sump-
tuary laws, which sought to dictate the clothing appropriate to the vari-
ous ranks of society, privileged kings and their immediate family. For
example, only they could wear cloth of gold and purple silk. The stat-
utes allowed peers, knights of the Garter, and the children of peers above
the rank of earl to wear crimson, scarlet, or blue velvet. Maria Hayward
determined that some “flouting” of the legislation occurred, but not
“expressly” among the nobility and upper gentry.12 Kings expected their
wives to dress in the royal style, providing them access to crown jewels
as well as expensive clothing. The first couple’s dominance gained both
a public and domestic visibility. In queenship and kingship, the public
and domestic realms naturally flowed into each other. When progressing
at court, the queens’ aristocratic ladies trailed behind them, whether at
special public functions or in more private settings.
Their queens’ domestic and public duties, as noted, focused on the
birth of the family heirs. Since some of their subjects feared that their
kings might repudiate barren consorts, successful childbirth served to
stabilize the queens’ cultural and social position, increasing the political
importance of their reign by holding out the promise of the dynasty’s
survival. If the children were boys, especially a firstborn prince, their
births called for joyous celebrations. The queens’ personal duty of writ-
ing letters announcing the successful delivery of their infants symbol-
ized the importance of the proof of their fertility. As John Carmi Parsons
emphasized, “Queens’ bodies were thus invested with immense signifi-
cance; society projected onto them hopes and anxieties that were sex-
ual as well as political.”13 Because of the need for heirs, physicians and
apothecaries took special care for the state of their health.
After the children’s birth, like other aristocratic infants, their parents
placed them with wet nurses and housed them in separate nurseries until
they reached the age appropriate for court residence. The children’s
absence did not signal the parents’ disinterest in their health and educa-
tion. Elizabeth of York, Katherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn contin-
ued to be involved in their offspring’s lives, if often only at a distance.
Their children traveled to court at holiday times, and their parents also
journeyed to see them in their separate nurseries, remaining deeply
­concerned about their well-being.
8  R.M. WARNICKE

How the royal couples approached the education of their children

depended in part on their own upbringing. Indeed, the consorts with the
potential for the most success at court had been educated to wed if not
a royal husband then a noble one, or at least to have had the experience
of marriage to a nobleman. These included, of course, Elizabeth of York,
Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, and Katherine Parr, who displayed
interests in scholarship, especially religious literature. Probably Jane
Seymour, certainly Anne of Cleves, because of the customs at her father’s
court, and Katherine Howard lacked a similar level of education The
Seymour family at least originally, seems to have hoped only for a knight’s
son for Jane, their eldest daughter. Depending on their experiences,
the consorts could and did patronize various writers, such as human-
ists Erasmus and Juan Luis Vives, who dedicated works to Katherine of
Aragon. Vives and other authors hoped to receive rewards from their
patrons and also to win a larger readership for their publications than oth-
erwise was possible. Besides this academic training, all women, regard-
less of their social status, usually learned to sew and embroider. One
of Katherine of Aragon’s pastimes was sewing, and Anne Boleyn also
instructed her maidens of honor to sew clothing for the poor.
The role of consorts, necessarily rooted in maternal affairs, still
involved important governmental dimensions. In some realms, such as
France, in the event of a king’s death leaving a minor son, dowagers, like
Catherine de’ Medici, could serve as regents for them. This practice did
not emerge in England, but Henry VIII did appoint two of his wives,
Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr, as regents while he led armies
to France. How much actual power the women possessed is not clear,
although Katherine of Aragon seems to have had more independent
authority than did Katherine Parr. Still, it is true that English kings usu-
ally selected members of the royal family, even minor sons, as heads of
councils in distant marches, such as Wales and the north of England, but
the councils actually ruled those turbulent areas.
When compared to the high medieval queenship, the Tudor ver-
sion appears somewhat diminished in influence and power. As long as
the court remained relatively small, queens could find abundant oppor-
tunities for exerting their influence publicly and privately.14 By the late
medieval period, their royal functions had become somewhat restricted
because of the separation of their households from those of the kings and
because of the growth in the number of staff in the increasingly bureau-
cratic courts. Even so, the queens’ role remained significant because
 1 INTRODUCTION  9

of their possible private influence with their husbands, because of the

importance of their other family duties, sometimes expressed in court
rituals, and because of their influence over patronage, appointments, and
financial matters in their households and sometimes at court.15
Although the Englishwomen who became Tudor consorts did not have
the advantage of foreign royal families to support them, they, like the for-
eign consorts, could find opportunities for influencing their husbands. At
the pinnacle of authority, queens gained praise and respect because of the
possibility of the birth of heirs, but the consorts’ presence also raised anxi-
eties among the kings’ subjects, especially their courtiers, who feared that
they might unduly influence their husbands’ decisions. The presence of
her relatives at court also could raise concerns. The aristocratic competi-
tion for royal office and advancement remained fierce, and the rivals of the
consorts’ relatives for rewards anticipated that they might win largess and
noble office partly because of their royal relationships.
Even so, kings expected their consorts’ good behavior and depend-
ence to focus on them rather than on their relatives, whether English or
foreign. Queens who protected their reputations and publicly respected
their husbands brought honor to them. The royal couples’ visibly com-
patible relationship demonstrated the political well-being of the realm. If
their subjects realized that their queens favored their relatives excessively
or preferred their advice over their husbands’, the women’s actions could
disrupt court life.
As queens presided over rather large households, they controlled a
number of appointments. At the top of the hierarchy, great ladies attended
them at court on special occasions. Their resident ladies included many
of their relatives or family friends. These residents served as ladies of the
privy chamber and bedchamber, as well as decorative young maidens of
honor. In addition, chambermaids and other domestic servants saw to
the queens’ needs. The beautiful and splendid dress of their aristocratic
attendants, particularly their maidens, enhanced the reputation of the con-
sorts, who also had the duty to protect the chastity of their women. Court
employment placed women in an uneasy position: they should somehow
appear as witty conversationalists and attractive to male courtiers, but they
should also present themselves as chaste and virginal.16 This difficult task
had to be accomplished if the consorts, who also had to appear attractive
but chaste, would be able to find suitable husbands for their dependents.
In addition, queens also attempted to arrange marriages for their relatives,
a practice that mirrored the activities of great ladies generally.
10  R.M. WARNICKE

Without queens, the court functioned as a male bastion, lacking host-

esses to welcome and entertain important domestic and foreign visitors.
The kings’ servants were overwhelmingly boys and men, for the female
residents lived in the queens’ household. At high holiday time, women
visitors could attend court, either with their spouses or as guests, but the
resident female attendants or employees, other than a few laundresses,
served the consorts. In some sense, their “formal circle of women” mir-
rored the male retinue that served kings.17 Recognizing the need for
female companions after the execution of Katherine Howard in early
1542, Henry VIII welcomed to court at Christmastide Mary Tudor, his
daughter by Katherine of Aragon, and her attendants.
In addition to servants looking after their household comfort, queens
had numerous others seeing to their pastime employments. They ben-
efited from the creativity of sundry entertainers, minstrels, and actors.
Unlike their Stuart successors, Anna of Denmark and Henrietta Maria,
Tudor consorts mostly did not seem to have taken the lead in arranging
court festivals and public pageantry, although they attended these occa-
sions. They also witnessed tournaments held by their husbands. These
elaborate festivities enhanced rulers’ reputations, if only secondarily their
queens’, as well as entertaining them. As David Mateer has noted about
even the architecture and decor of palaces, “Every aspect of court life
was designed as a manifestation of its ‘prince’” and signaled his deeply
held values.18
Furthermore, the consorts possessed servants who supervised their
stables, which housed horses that they rode for both hunting and trans-
portation. During the late fall to early summer, the peripatetic court
moved customarily in barges among the Thames River’s “standing pal-
aces,” but then during the summer to early fall, when the court traveled
in reduced form, their horses proved indispensable for transporting them
to their country residences and to the estates of courtiers and local dig-
nitaries.19 The number of the queens’ household appointments thus was
potentially great, although it is also true that kings selected some of their
servants, and if their wives’ expenditures exceeded their revenue, they
could be held accountable.20
Kings normally granted jointure or dower property to their wives
for funding their households. Made femmes sole when they became
queens, they could regularly conduct business without requiring their
husband’s permission. As their income derived from vast numbers of
estates and many other sources, such as the queen’s gold, they held
 1 INTRODUCTION  11

important financial positions at court and in the country, distributing

more resources than almost everyone else but the kings themselves. To
handle their financial affairs, consorts depended on a council and numer-
ous administrative servants, who collected their revenue.21 They also
employed attorneys for legal advice, but unlike later Stuart queens, they
did not have access to a special law court of their own for their litigation,
such as Queen Anna of Denmark’s court of chancery, but instead utilized
the traditional law courts.22
In addition, queens depended on chaplains and almoners for their
spiritual needs, the latter offering the public visibility of their mistresses’
roles as dispensers of alms and charity. Since their subjects expected the
queens to guard their reputations and lead honorable lives, some of
the evidence that they could produce to prove their chaste compliance
was to see to the good ordering of their chapels and to seek patron-
age for their churchmen. As the chaplains or chancellors might later
become bishops or archbishops,23 such as Anne Boleyn’s chaplain,
Hugh Latimer, the clerics that consorts favored could gain significant
ecclesiastical positions. Sometimes the consorts associated themselves
publicly with important religious figures, movements, or institutions.
Katherine of Aragon, for example, wore the robes of the third order
of the Franciscan Observants under her clothing and went on pilgrim-
ages. During the course of the Reformation, as Henry gained statutory
recognition as head of the Church of England, religion became a divi-
sive public issue rather than a solidifying one, affecting in particular the
queenships of Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, and Katherine Parr.
The rituals in which the queens participated often had religious and
familial origins and underpinnings. When they succeeded in childbirth,
they participated in the customary churching ceremony, which ena-
bled them to return to their normal social lives. They did not attend
their own children’s christening because the rite took place before their
churching and because godparents in the early modern church had the
major roles. In Easter services, such as the maundy, reenacting Christ’s
washing of his disciples’ feet, the number of ladies whose feet the queens
washed, as customary, equaled their ages at their future birthdays. The
consorts often did attend their children’s betrothals if not their mar-
riages. Their final rituals, of course, took place on their deathbeds as they
sought to put their spiritual lives in order. After their funerals, sometimes
memorial services, such as a month’s mind, could be observed, although
no evidence of them has survived for the consorts studied here.
12  R.M. WARNICKE

During their lifetimes, Tudor queens obtained certain public perso-

nas. Male propagandists, for the most part, created these images of them.
Later, Anna of Denmark and Henrietta Maria tried to influence pub-
lic views of themselves through their masques, but earlier consorts did
not seem to have been active in that respect, except for Katherine Parr,
who published religious works. At the acme of the social hierarchy, what
Tudor queens did mattered to courtiers and others, who watched them
closely and wrote verses and prose about them, providing evidence of
their culture’s views of womanhood. The most important and poignant
image was that of a “virtuous queen bringing up her children in love and
obedience.”24 This image still symbolizes Elizabeth of York’s queenship,
although some historians have surprisingly argued that her mother-in-
law kept her in subjection. Some of the other Tudor consorts have less
positive images. The understandable marital intransigence of Katherine
of Aragon, the good religious wife and mother, led to the Reformation;
Anne Boleyn looms large in some histories, unfortunately, as the femme
fatale who destroyed the king’s first marriage, and by her alleged betrayal
of him caused her own execution. Despite accepting Henry’s woo-
ing while Anne was still alive, Jane Seymour has emerged as the obedi-
ent wife, who gave the king the long-sought-after son. When she died
shortly afterward, Henry honored her memory by his decision to be bur-
ied next to her at Windsor Castle. Anne of Cleves is viewed erroneously
as the unattractive wife that he discarded, while many writers continue
to slander Katherine Howard as the young but naive royal flirt who con-
cealed her premarital sexual behavior. Katherine Parr has won praise as a
capable stepmother and for her scholarship and reformed views, which
led some of the king’s ministers to plot her destruction. That she chal-
lenged social customs by marrying Thomas, Lord Seymour of Sudeley,
only a few months after the king’s death has mostly lacked criticism by
her biographers.
These images have been repeated today, especially in the six wives
genre, which offers biographies of Henry’s wives. In addition, Joanna
Laynesmith’s award-winning book on medieval queenship in the fif-
teenth century includes Elizabeth of York’s reign.25 Both medieval and
Tudor scholars claim in their period of history the Tudor matriarch,
who is included here as a model and pattern for her six daughters-in-law.
Henry was somewhat familiar with his mother’s reign, as he was almost
11 years old when she died. Except for my article that includes only
 1 INTRODUCTION  13

Henry VIII’s queens consort, no study focusing on their reigns, rather

than their biographies, has been published.26
Chapter 2 begins with the search for Tudor brides, their weddings, and
the celebrations around them, and then the coronations.27 Chapter 3 cov-
ers the queens’ households, including their jointure or dower and their
attendants, servants, and officials. Chapter 4 examines their routine church
observances, such as almsgiving, and notes how religious beliefs affected
social attitudes toward the conception and delivery of their children. It also
relates how they raised and educated their children and covers other fam-
ily matters. Chapter 5 not only explains the queens’ governmental duties,
including diplomatic interactions and their roles as regents and interces-
sors, but also discusses their patronage of scholars and religious reform-
ers. Chapter 6 looks at the nonreligious celebrations and festivals in which
they participated or which they witnessed, especially entries, tournaments
and jousting, diplomatic greetings, and calendar holidays, such as New
Year’s gift giving, the Order of the Garter ceremonies, and May Day tradi-
tions. Chapter 7 turns to their final days, the loss of their positions, both
by deaths and annulments, and their burials and funerals. Finally, Chap. 8
offers a brief conclusion.

Notes
1. János Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” Queens and
Queenship in Medieval Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at King’s
College, London, April 1995, ed. Anne Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell
Press, 1997), pp. 232–233.
2. Desiderius Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince, trans. Lester
Born (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), pp. 42, 240–243.
3. Michael Bush, “The Tudors and the Royal Race,” History, new series,
55(1970), 48.
4. Many publications on queenship are available. See, for example, Joseph
O’Callaghan, “The Many Roles of the Medieval Queen: Some Examples
from Castile,” Queenship and Political Power in Medieval and Early
Modern Spain, ed. Theresa Earenfight (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005),
pp. 21–32. See also the references in other endnotes.
5. Margaret Labarge, Women in Medieval Life: A Small Sound of the Trumpet
(London: Hamilton, 1986), p. 48.
6. Janet Nelson, “Early Medieval Rites of Queen-Making and the Shaping
of Medieval Queenship,” Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe,
p. 302; Lois Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland: A Study in Medieval
Queenship (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), pp. 35–39.
14  R.M. WARNICKE

7. Pauline Stafford, “Queens and Queenship,” A Companion to the Early

Middle Ages: Britain and England c.500–c.1000, ed. P. Stafford (Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p. 471.
8. John Guillim, A Display of Heraldrie (London: Ralph Mab, 1610), dedi-
cation.
9. Lois Huneycutt, “Intercession and the High-Medieval Queen: The Esther
Topos,” Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer
Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Champaign: University of Illinois
Press, 1995), pp. 126–146.
10. John Carmi Parsons, “The Queen’s Intercession in Thirteenth-Century
England,” Power of the Weak, p. 147.
11. Fiona Downie, “Queenship in Late Medieval Scotland,” Scottish Kingship,
1306–1542: Essays in Honour of Norman MacDougall, ed. Michael
Brown and Roland Tanner (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2004), p. 286; for
Henrietta Maria’s Intercessions, see Frances Dolan, Whores of Babylon:
Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth-Century Print Culture (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1999), pp. 118–136.
12. Maria Hayward, Rich Apparel: Clothing and the Law in Henry VIII’s
England (Burlington: Ashgate, 2009), p. 233. Later, in Mary’s reign, a
sumptuary law was passed which complained that many of the queen’s
“ladies and maids go so richly arrayed on working days as her mother did
on holy days.” See T.N.A. SP 11/11, no. 67.
13. John Carmi Parsons, “The Pregnant Queen as Counsellor and the Medieval
Construction of Motherhood,” Medieval Mothering, ed. J. Parsons and
Bonnie Wheeler (New York: Garland Publishing, 1996), p. 44.
14. Labarge, Women in Medieval Life, p. 47 (1986).
15. This discussion benefits from Caroline Hibbard, “Henrietta Maria in the
1630s: Perspectives on the Role of Consort Queens in Ancièn Régime
Courts,” The 1630s: Interdisciplinary Essays on Culture in the Caroline
Era, ed. Ian Atherton and Julie Sanders (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 2006), pp. 92–110.
16. Ann Rosalind Jones, “Nets and Bridles: Early Modern Conduct Books
and Sixteenth-Century Women’s Lyrics,” The Ideology of Conduct: Essays
on the Literature and History of Sexuality, ed. Nancy Armstrong and
Leonard Tennenhouse (New York: Methuen, 1989), pp. 39–45.
17. Leeds Barroll, “The Court of the First Stuart Queen,” The Mental World
of the Jacobean Court, ed. Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), pp. 191–192.
18. David Mateer, “Introduction,” Courts, Patrons, and Poets, ed. D. Mateer
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), p. ix.
19. “Standing houses,” like Greenwich Palace, Hampton Court Palace, and
Windsor Castle, remained furnished when the court was elsewhere.
 1 INTRODUCTION  15

See Fiona Kisby, “Kingship and the Royal Intinerary: A Study of the
Peripatetic Household of the Early Tudor Kings, 1485–1547,” The Court
Historian, 4 (1998), 29–39.
20. Chris Given-Wilson, “The Merger of Edward III’s and Queen Philippa’s
Household, 1360–1369,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research,
51(2978), 183–187.
21. A.R. Myers, “The Household of Queen Margaret of Anjou,” Bulletin of
the John Rylands Library, 40 (1952–1958), 82–85.
22. Clare McManus, “Introduction,” Women and Culture at the Courts of the
Stuart Queens, ed. C. McManus (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003),
p. 4.
23. Anne Crawford, “The Piety of Late Medieval English Queens,” The
Church in Pre-Reformation Society: Essays in Honour of F.R.H. Du Boulay,
ed. Caroline Barron and Christopher Harper-Bill (Woodbridge: Boydell
Press, 1985), p. 48.
24. Sybil Jack, “In Praise of Queens: The Public Presentation of the
Virtuous Consort in Seventeenth-Century Britain,” Identities, Women,
and Communities in Early Modern Europe, ed. Susan Broomhall and
Stephanie Tarbin (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), p. 218.
25. Joanna Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445–1503
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
26. Retha M. Warnicke “Queenship: Politics and Gender in Tudor England,”
History Compass, 4 (2006), 203–227. (www.history-compass.com). See
also Warnicke, “Margaret Tudor, Countess of Richmond, and Elizabeth
of York: Dynastic Competitors or Royal Allies?” Unexpected Heirs and
Heiresses in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings and Queens, ed. Valerie
Schutte (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming).
27. For another study of these marriages, see Retha M. Warnicke, “The Tudor
Consorts The Politics of Royal Matchmaking, 1483–1543,” Queens
Matter in Early Modern Studies. Ed. Anne Riehl Bertolet (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming).
 CHAPTER 2

Marriages and Coronations

As monarchs’ selections of their consorts had far-reaching national and

international ramifications, they usually attempted to make choices
on the basis of sound diplomatic, financial, and hierarchical criteria. In
examining how Henry VII and Henry VIII chose and wed their con-
sorts, this chapter points out that special circumstances, the Wars of
the Roses, the death of Arthur, prince of Wales, and the controversy
surrounding Henry VIII’s attempt to have his marriage to Katherine
of Aragon dissolved led both kings to adopt strategies that deviated
from traditional patterns of royal courtship and marriage. How the five
English wives advanced to this office are addressed here before those of
the two foreigners. Finally, this chapter compares and contrasts the coro-
nations of Elizabeth of York, Katherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn.
In 1483, amid rumors circulating about the whereabouts of Edward
IV’s sons, Edward V and Richard, duke of York and Norfolk, Margaret
Tudor, countess of Richmond, entered into marriage negotiations
with the boys’ mother, Elizabeth. Lady Richmond’s physician, Lewis
Caerleon, who studied at the University of Cambridge, carried mes-
sages between the two that led to their agreement that when her son,
Henry Tudor, an exile in Brittany, succeeded Richard III as king, he
would wed the queen’s namesake daughter. Lady Richmond’s serv-
ant, Hugh Conway, delivered information about this alliance to Henry,
who on Christmas morning 1483, at the cathedral of Vannes, swore to
marry Elizabeth. This important promise won for him Yorkist support,
­attracting Richard’s enemies but siphoning off some of his allies as well.1

© The Author(s) 2017 17

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_2
18  R.M. WARNICKE

This proposal might have occurred to Lady Richmond because after

political crises, monarchs, like Edward III in 1330, usually sought to
reconcile the divided factions. After recovering his kingdom from his
mother, Isabella, and Roger Mortimer, earl of March, Edward moved to
lessen the hostility between his mother’s supporters and her opponents.
He decided against pursuing vigorously his father Edward II’s rebels and
murderers. The young king did, it is true, agree to March’s execution,
but after 2 years of secluding his mother, he permitted her to resume
control of her property, and he meanwhile refused to support attempts
to have his father revered as a saint. As Mark Ormrod noted, his “official
policy” was “low key.”2
A more recent political development that might have served as an
example for Lady Richmond’s intrigue could have been the secret wed-
ding in 1464 of Elizabeth, widow of Sir John Grey, to Edward IV. By
this marriage, the first Yorkist king could have hoped to win Lancastrian
support. Elizabeth, sometimes reviled as a femme fatale,3 was the daugh-
ter of Jaquetta of Luxembourg, dowager duchess of Bedford, by her
second husband, a Lancastrian, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers. It is
noteworthy that Lady Bedford witnessed her daughter’s royal mar-
riage. The dowager’s first husband, John of Lancaster, duke of Bedford
and brother of Henry V, had ruled as the French regent of his nephew,
Henry VI, with her uncle, Cardinal Louis of Luxembourg, bishop of
Thérouanne and bishop of Ely in commendam, serving as his French
chancellor. The widow of this respected Lancastrian nobleman, who
endowed her with great wealth, Lady Bedford possessed a high social
status in her own right as a member of the Order of the Garter.4
From Edward’s accession in 1461, his conciliatory policies had
included pardoning some Lancastrians, including Rivers. Many have
condemned his marriage to Elizabeth partly because she was a widow,
but the marriage of a king to a widow was not a forbidden tradition.
Henry IV, for example, wed as his second wife Joanne of Navarre,
widow of John de Montford, duke of Brittany. That Edward’s mar-
riage to Elizabeth outraged some Yorkists while failing to placate many
Lancastrians was not his only unsuccessful effort at reconciliation. He
failed to win over Lady Richmond’s uncle, Edmund Beaufort, duke of
Somerset, who led his forces against Edward at Tewkesbury in 1471, the
final Lancastrian defeat in the Wars of the Roses.5
Royal marriages usually represented diplomatic developments. The
union of Elizabeth and Edward led to a change in England’s foreign
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  19

policy since it involved his rejecting Louis XI’s sister-in-law, Bona of

Savoy, whom Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, had sought as the royal
bride. Edward preferred a family relationship with Philip the Good, duke
of Burgundy, that might lead to an alliance with him. The king had ear-
lier sent envoys to the duke, whose empire included Luxembourg, seek-
ing to wed his niece, Katherine of Bourbon, but Burgundy declined the
offer from concerns, which proved true in 1470, that Edward had insuf-
ficient control of his realm.6 Next Edward proposed to marry the wid-
owed Mary of Guelders, another of the duke’s nieces, whose marriage
had confirmed an alliance between James II and Burgundy.7 Seeking
friendship with Burgundy seems to have been the major reason Edward
married the daughter of Bedford’s dowager, whose brothers included
Louis de Luxembourg, count of St. Pol, and Jacques de Luxembourg,
seigneur de Richebourg.8 In 1465, as Burgundy’s representative, the sei-
gneur attended Elizabeth’s coronation. Two years later, Edward negoti-
ated a treaty with Burgundy’s heir, Charles the Bold, who subsequently
wed the king’s sister, Margaret of York. Edward’s union with Elizabeth,
a granddaughter of Luxembourg, was not the first occasion on which
an Englishman’s marriage sought to strengthen a Burgundian alli-
ance. Although it had not worked out as Bedford intended, he had wed
Jaquetta in 1433, hoping to preserve Burgundy’s enmity against France.9
Edward’s alliance with Elizabeth alienated some of the king’s power-
ful Yorkist supporters, especially Warwick, because their union furthered
a Burgundian rather than a French alliance. This earl, along with his for-
mer ward, the king’s brother, George Plantagenet, duke of Clarence,
succeeded in relieving Edward momentarily of his throne in 1470. Many
scholars, who have mostly ignored the Burgundian initiative, have dis-
missed Edward’s marriage as a love match.10
Some writers have also condemned Henry VII’s treatment of the heir-
ess Elizabeth of York. Joanna Laynesmith, for example, has questioned
why Henry, who won the Battle of Bosworth Field in August 1485
and scheduled his coronation in October, delayed marrying her until
January 1486 and waited until November 1487 to hold her coronation.
Laynesmith concluded that Elizabeth’s “claim to sovereignty threatened
his position,” leading him to postpone her coronation to avoid issues
of joint rule.11 This is a problematic analysis in an otherwise signifi-
cant book on medieval queenship, since in 1485 no one expected that a
woman should or could succeed as queen regnant. In 1534, Henry VIII
withdrew England’s church from obedience to the Roman confession in
20  R.M. WARNICKE

order to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Katherine of Aragon in

hopes of siring a son with a new wife because he feared that their only
legitimate child, Mary, would be unable to succeed him. In 1650, Sir
Anthony Weldon explained in his Chronicle of the English Kings that
he had omitted Elizabeth I and Mary I because he had “nothing to do
with women” and wished he “never had.”12 As late as 1689, Parliament
favored the male with the lesser royal claim over females with better
claims. The Bill of Rights named William and Mary as joint monarchs
but limited regal power to William, third in line to the throne after his
wife, Mary, and her sister, Anne.
In England in 1485, when ignoring gender issues, Henry’s mother
possessed the best Lancastrian claim, but she sought the crown for
her son; later, in 1509, at her month’s mind, John Fisher, bishop of
Rochester, claimed that she had wept with joy at his coronation. Even
so, some scholars have questioned whether she tried to usurp her daugh-
ter-in-law’s social place as consort. Noting that in 1499, she signed
her name as “Margaret R” instead of “M. Richmond,” Michael Jones
and Malcolm Underwood have wondered whether the “R” might have
meant “Regina” and whether Elizabeth resented the “aura of regal-
ity” around her mother-in-law.13 More likely Lady Richmond adopted
this signature to emphasize her higher status as the king’s mother over
her status as countess. From early in the reign, as the king’s mother, her
name stood first in a list of noble ladies, including duchesses. If she had
relied on her title of countess, this would have been an impossible place-
ment.14 A precedence for her status as the king’s mother and thus as a
princess existed. At Edward IV’s court, his mother had gained recogni-
tion as “Cicelie mother to the kinge.”15 By contrast, Elizabeth of York
signed her name as “Elizabeth ye Queene.”16
Why, then, did Henry delay the public marriage? After defeating
Richard, Henry still had to establish control of his divided kingdom. He
summoned Elizabeth from Yorkshire, where Richard had sent her, and
prepared to call a parliament to signal national recognition of his rule.
Customarily new kings did not summon their first parliaments until after
their coronations, and indeed Henry’s ritual was a hurried affair, less cer-
emonial than usual and without the customary procession through the
city of London. His first parliament resolved various lineage issues: it
reenacted the 1397 statute that legitimized his mother’s Beaufort ances-
tors, but it did not include the 1407 statement that denied their claim
to the throne, and it repealed Richard’s Titulus Regius that declared
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  21

Edward IV’s children illegitimate, a necessary precursor to Henry’s pub-

lic wedding to Elizabeth. His own right to the throne did not depend
entirely on his Beaufort lineage. It also derived from “veum Dei judi-
cium”—that is, “God’s judgment at Bosworth.”17
Just before Parliament’s dissolution in December 1485, Sir Thomas
Lovell, speaker of the Commons and Henry’s treasurer of the cham-
ber, sent to the Lords a petition addressed to the king, requesting that
he marry Elizabeth, as he had sworn to do. The Lords stood, and with
heads bowed, they asked him to keep that promise. This did not consti-
tute a parliamentary demand but was a staged event, approved by Henry,
to show a display of legislative enthusiasm for his public wedding to
Elizabeth.18 It otherwise would have been an improper request; even in
Henry VIII’s reign, parliaments debated his marriage and the succession
only at his request. His daughter Elizabeth forbade her parliaments to
discuss both her marriage and the succession.
In 1485, the best male Yorkist claimant was Edward, earl of Warwick,
son of the duke of Clarence, whom Edward IV had attainted, thus legally
depriving him of the right to succeed. Although Richard III had also
attainted Henry Tudor, he became king anyway. If Warwick, imprisoned
in the Tower of London, could not succeed, then his cousin, John de
la Pole, earl of Lincoln, son of Edward IV’s sister, Elizabeth, duchess
of Suffolk, was available. If Lincoln had defeated Henry at the Battle of
Stoke in 1487, he most likely would have claimed the throne for him-
self, rather than have permitted the accession of the commoner, Lambert
Simnel, who pretended to be Warwick and who had been crowned king
of Ireland.
Other reasons could have delayed Henry’s and Elizabeth’s public
wedding. They needed a papal dispensation, as they were related in the
fourth double degree of consanguinity. Henry had requested one from
Innocent VIII in March 1484, but from concerns that it might be chal-
lenged as “insufficient,” he asked for another one. A second one, dated
January 16, 1486, conferred “irrefutable legal and religious authority
on their union.”19 Two days after it arrived, they were married publicly
at Westminster Abbey. Little evidence has survived about the ceremony
except that Thomas Bourchier, cardinal archbishop of Canterbury, offici-
ated “in the sight of the Church,”20 a statement that could have meant
only the presence of the monks or perhaps a larger congregation. No
reports of official festivities have survived. According to Bernard André,
the blind poet, their subjects reacted to the news with joyousness.
22  R.M. WARNICKE

Henry’s ongoing concerns about challenges to this marriage led him to

request the pope to waive the impediment of the fourth degree of affin-
ity (relationship through marriage). Subsequently, in March and in July,
two more bulls proclaimed their marriage valid.21
Some couples did marry publicly before a bull’s appearance, but
Henry required not only Innocent’s approval of his union but also
confirmation of his accession, since he needed to maintain a friendly
relationship with the papacy, upon whose aid he depended in his strug-
gle against rebels. In 1489 and 1495, both Innocent and his succes-
sor, Alexander VI, limited the privilege of sanctuary on which some of
Henry’s enemies had been relying to prevent their arrests.22
Despite the public wedding’s delay, Henry and Elizabeth almost cer-
tainly had exchanged private vows, as usually occurred in royal marriages.
References to her as his “wife” can be found in a royal document in late
1485.23 As to her delayed coronation, Sean Cunningham has empha-
sized the king’s fragile position. At the age of 28, he had never experi-
enced “the responsibility of authority” with which even English manor
owners had become familiar.24 Since his was not a peaceful accession, he
had to attend to many more difficult crises than those that a new mon-
arch usually encountered. As the Crowland Chronicler reported, their
marriage did not prevent the “fury of some malignants.”25 In early
March 1486, Yorkist rebels under the leadership of Francis, Viscount
Lovell, Sir Humphrey Stafford, and his brother, Thomas, attempted to
raise rebellions in Richmondshire and in the west Midlands. Henry’s
uncle, Jasper Tudor, recently ennobled as duke of Bedford, also moved
to suppress disturbances in Wales. When the king went in person to
pacify York, a city that had expressed loyalty to Richard, an assassin
attempted to kill him.26 The following September, Elizabeth gave birth
to her son Arthur. It is possible that Henry did not wish to expose his
queen in a public ceremony that would draw great, sometimes unruly,
crowds during a time of so many disturbances. Indeed, by the winter of
1486, a serious conspiracy had emerged in Ireland where Yorkist con-
spirators supported Lambert Simnel. This conspiracy led to the only Irish
invasion of England and, as noted earlier, to the Battle of Stoke.
Actually, a royal writ dated December 17, 1485, indicates that some
preparations had begun for her coronation. The king granted her mas-
ter of the horse, Roger Cotton, £40 to purchase “coursers” for the
coronation of his “wife.”27 It is likely that the disturbances in 1486 and
the serious conspiracy that emerged in Ireland when Lambert Simnel
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  23

claimed to be Warwick caused further postponements. The Simnel threat

was defeated in June 1487. That September, plans moved forward for
Elizabeth’s coronation.
Contemporary evidence fails to support allegations that Henry caused
these delays to avoid joint rule. Monarchs rarely manipulated important
rituals with hierarchical protocols to express personal biases. Historians
once claimed that Henry VIII’s disappointment over Elizabeth’s sex
caused him to boycott her christening. He did not attend Edward’s rit-
ual either because godparents held the most important roles at them. To
keep the Yorkists who had supported him loyal would have led Henry
VII, one could argue, to treat his wife, a king’s daughter, with public
respect. In 1831, Samuel Bentley, editor of Henry’s privy purse expenses,
explained, “There is not a single one (entry) which justifies the gener-
ally received opinion…that he was miserly or…that he lived on terms
of unkindness with his wife.”28 Polydore Vergil, who reached England
in 1502, praised Elizabeth’s intelligence and beauty and never hinted
that Henry had dishonored her. Vergil also failed to note that Lady
Richmond, “of sound sense and holiness of life,” had negatively inter-
acted with her daughter-in-law.29 Indeed, it was Sir Francis Bacon’s biog-
raphy in 1622 that first claimed that Henry had delayed her coronation
to avoid joint rule.30
Now, turning to Henry VIII and his wives, how he chose three of
his English consorts—Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, and Katherine
Howard—although obviously different in some ways, seems to have fol-
lowed similar patterns. These women had served as attendants to the
queen from whom he wished to obtain an annulment. When he decided
to replace a spouse, he began seeking a new English consort. The obvi-
ous place to look was his estranged wife’s household where her maidens
resided. After discussing his union with Katherine Parr, the only English
match that he initiated while completely unencumbered by marriage,
this chapter addresses his decision to wed two foreign-born women,
Katherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves, before turning to the corona-
tions of Elizabeth of York, Katherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn.
His reasons for not seeking foreigners when he married his English
subjects must remain somewhat speculative. Clearly, in 1527, he found
Anne Boleyn attractive, but at 36 years of age, he also needed to wed
quickly and set up his nursery. Marriage to foreigners that required dip-
lomatic alliances could be a tedious, lengthy process. When he began
courting Anne, who had connections to the French royal family in whose
24  R.M. WARNICKE

court she lived from 1514 to 1521, he could not have anticipated that
he would still be legally wed to Katherine in 1533. If he had wished to
look abroad after obtaining the annulment of his first marriage, he would
have had the difficult task of persuading royal fathers to send their young
daughters to a foreign land to marry a man who had discarded his long-
time, faithful wife. As he later discovered when he settled for Anne of
Cleves, marrying into the most important royal families remained an elu-
sive goal because they were all interrelated and Roman Catholic, mean-
ing that their relatives had to obtain papal dispensations for any of their
daughters to wed Henry. This proved to be an impossible goal in 1538,
when Clement VII refused to provide a dispensation for the union of
Henry with Christina, dowager duchess of Milan, a niece of Emperor
Charles V.
All his English queens could trace their ancestry back to Edward I.
Anne’s mother was the daughter of Thomas Howard, second duke of
Norfolk, and her paternal great-grandfather was also a nobleman,
Thomas Butler, earl of Ormond, whose daughter, Lady Margaret, mar-
ried Sir William Boleyn. Jane Seymour’s mother, Margery Wentworth,
was a descendant of Edward III. Katherine Howard’s father, Edmund,
was a son of the second duke of Norfolk, and Katherine Parr descended
through the Beaufort line of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster.
Many facts about Anne Boleyn remain under dispute, including her
age. William Camden, Clarenceux king of arms, a principal officer of
the College of Arms, claimed she was born in 1507 and noted also that
she was 16 years younger than Henry.31 Later, Edward, Lord Herbert
of Cherbury, stated that she was about 20 when she became a maiden
of honor to Katherine of Aragon.32 This information would seem to
place her return to court in 1527, the year of the first record of her pres-
ence there, after her earlier rustication because of the courtship of Lord
Henry Percy, future fifth earl of Northumberland. Nineteen or twenty
was a somewhat advanced age for a girl to gain appointment as a maiden.
Often, in England, girls reached their midteens when selected for this
honorable position, which they and their parents anticipated would pro-
vide them with opportunities to make a favorable marriage.33
Describing Anne as a femme fatale, some writers have charged her
with setting out to destroy Henry’s marriage to Katherine of Aragon
by refusing to become his mistress, as her sister, Mary, had done.34 Had
Katherine’s sons lived, Henry would never have rejected her for a sec-
ond wife. Clearly he sought to wed a young, chaste woman, hoping that
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  25

God would favor him with a live, healthy son. In 1527, when Katherine
was 42 years old and had not conceived for 9 years, he decided that his
dynasty’s survival required him to seek a new wife.
On May 5, 1527, he danced with Anne in Katherine’s apartments
while his 11-year-old daughter, Mary, whom he was considering mar-
rying into the French royal family, danced with Francis Turre, Viscount
Turènne, the French ambassador.35 Henry later ordered his lord chan-
cellor, Thomas Wolsey, cardinal archbishop of York, to obtain an annul-
ment of his union with Katherine. After she appealed to Clement VII
for an official inquiry, the pope delayed making a decision, hop-
ing to avoid an estrangement with Henry but also unwilling to anger
Katherine’s nephew, Charles V, whose troops had sacked Rome. To pres-
sure Clement, Henry began attacking the independence of the church
in England. One of the first victims was Cardinal Wolsey. Another victim
was his successor as lord chancellor, Sir Thomas More. The major acts of
the Reformation Parliament (1529–1536), which resulted in England’s
withdrawal from the Roman confession, cannot be addressed in detail
here. During its sessions, Sir Thomas Cromwell emerged as Henry’s
principal minister, ultimately gaining the offices of secretary and then
lord privy seal.
Meanwhile, in 1527, Clement agreed to permit Henry (if his marriage
to Katherine were annulled) to marry the sister of a former mistress and
also a woman who had entered into a contract of marriage that remained
unconsummated. During the next 5 years, Henry favored Anne and
sent to her still-extant love letters, especially when she suffered from the
sweating sickness (probably a flu virus) in 1528. By that year, he had
transferred her from Katherine’s household to Durham Place, with her
mother, Lady Elizabeth, serving as her chaperone. In 1531, he went on
his summer progress, leaving behind Katherine, whom he later ordered
removed to The More, Wolsey’s old home.
On September 1, 1532, Henry granted Anne lands worth about £1000
annually and ennobled her as the marchioness of Pembroke in an elabo-
rate ceremony, during which she wore splendid clothing and jewels. In
October, he escorted her and her ladies to Calais to visit with Francis I.
Upon their return home, the two surely exchanged private vows and con-
summated their union, perhaps on November 14, well before the begin-
ning of Advent, when marriage and sexual intercourse were forbidden by
church decree. It is possible that their confidence that the new archbishop
of Canterbury would annul the king’s first marriage led them to this step.36
26  R.M. WARNICKE

In August 1532, when William Warham, archbishop of Canterbury,

died, Henry had chosen as his successor Thomas Cranmer, who agreed
with him that God had punished the king for marrying his brother’s
widow. They relied on an Old Testament verse, Leviticus 20:21, which
stipulated that a man who took his brother’s wife would be childless.37
Of course, Henry did possess a daughter, but no woman had attempted
to succeed to the English throne since Empress Matilda in the twelfth
century. Henry’s grandmother, Lady Richmond, had lived long enough
to witness her grandson’s coronation, offering him a personal reminder
that his dynasty had begun with her son rather than with her.
On January 25, 1533, Henry married Anne, who was pregnant, prob-
ably in the West turret at York place, in the presence of Henry Norris
and Thomas Heneage of the privy chamber and Anne Savage, later
the wife of Thomas, Lord Berkeley. Roland Lee, the future bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, officiated at the service. The date and place of
the wedding were kept so secret that scholars still disagree about where
and when it occurred. After his April 7 prorogation of Parliament, which
had passed the Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533: 24 Henry VIII, c. 12)
making it impossible for individuals to appeal marital cases, among oth-
ers, to Rome, Henry revealed that Anne was his wife. On April 12, the
morning of Easter Eve, she accompanied him to high mass in the chapel
royal, dressed in cloth of gold and wearing rich jewels, thus indicat-
ing her royal position to observers. At Dunstable in May, Cranmer led
a formal inquiry into the validity of Henry’s marriage to Katherine and
declared it null and void, thus relieving the king of his bigamous status
and validating his marriage to Anne.38
Other than personal considerations, his courtship of her differed
from that of his other English queens primarily because of the length of
time it took to obtain the dissolution of the marriage to the immedi-
ate wife involved. The 6-year delay from 1527 to 1533 resulted from his
attempts to work with the papacy. The Act in Restraint of Appeals offi-
cially removed that requirement, leaving Henry to deal with his marital
issues in cooperation with his parliaments without needing to seek papal
approval for his continuing attempts to marry a wife who could give
birth to a healthy son.
Cranmer and other English churchmen also confirmed Henry’s next
two annulments. In 1536, amid rumors concerning Anne’s January mis-
carriage of his son, Henry began paying special attention to Jane, the
eldest daughter of Sir John Seymour of Wolf Hall. The first evidence of
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  27

a Mistress Seymour at court is in a 1534 manuscript listing New Year’s

gifts to Anne’s ladies, but unfortunately, it omits their first names.39 Jane
did have two sisters named Elizabeth and Dorothy who also lived to
adulthood.
Charles Wriothesley, the Windsor herald, described Jane as a “wait-
ing lady” to Katherine and Anne, but no such office existed.40 On July
11, 1536, Charles V’s ambassador at Rome, Dr. Pedro Ortiz, informed
Empress Isabella that he had heard from their English ambassador,
Eustace Chapuys, that Jane, the new queen, had served as a maid,
apparently meaning maiden of honor, to both Katherine and Anne.
Unfortunately, the letter in which Chapuys allegedly made these com-
ments has not survived.41 Jane could easily have served in Katherine’s
household, but her advanced age makes it difficult to accept the identifi-
cation of her as Anne’s maiden. Jane’s biographers dated her birth about
1509, meaning she would have reached at least her twenty-fourth year
in early 1534,42 an old age for maidens, who are routinely described as
teenage girls. In 1537, for example, when Jane, as queen, had the oppor-
tunity to appoint a maiden, either Anne Basset, born circa 1521, or her
sister, Katherine, born circa 1517–1519, she chose the younger sibling.43
It seems likely that Jane joined Anne’s household sometime before
she became queen in 1533, perhaps as early as 1528, when she left
Katherine’s household for Durham House. Members of the royal fam-
ily, such as her future stepdaughter, Mary, had female attendants to care
for their needs from their infancy. Eustace Chapuys, whose information
sometimes relied solely on rumors that cannot be corroborated, claimed
that in July 1531, after Katherine’s rustication and again in January
1532, that Anne had been collecting officials and many ladies as though
she were already queen. These claims, if true, could offer other possible
dates for Jane’s appointment as Anne’s attendant. Her father, Sir John,
and brother, Sir Edward, belonged to a politically ambitious family and
probably worked to obtain her membership in the household of the
future queen. Later Anne might have planned to, or perhaps did finally,
advance Jane to another office when her parents failed to arrange a mar-
riage for her. For example, Queen Elizabeth I transferred her maiden,
Mary Radcliffe, when she grew too old for a position held by teenaged
girls, to the privy chamber, a more appropriate place for her, although
its members normally consisted of wives or widows.44 Perhaps Anne
appointed Jane as her maiden sometime between 1528 and 1532 and
then after 1534 moved her into the privy chamber.
28  R.M. WARNICKE

Information in Chapuys’s surviving dispatches, which contain most of

the news that scholars have repeated about Jane at Greenwich in early
1536, do not resolve this issue. In February, he reported both Anne’s
miscarriage and Henry’s presentation of expensive gifts to Mistress
Seymour, identified only as a damsel of the court. It is not clear what
Chapuys meant by this statement. Normally only never-married women
at court attended the queen. In April, he noted that first Sir Thomas
Eliot and then later Gertrude Courtenay, marchioness of Exeter,
revealed to him that Henry had sent from Westminster a purse of sov-
ereigns with a letter to Jane. She allegedly returned the purse and the
letter unopened, replying that he could give her presents when she had
an advantageous marriage. Chapuys also heard that Cromwell gave up
a room in his Greenwich quarters to her, and that her brother, Edward,
and his wife, Anne née Stanhope, acted as her chaperones. None of these
claims, except for Anne’s miscarriage and Jane’s presence at court, can
be corroborated. The rumor about the returned gifts, since two inform-
ants separately revealed it to him, sounds like an invented event to assure
Chapuys of Jane’s honor and to neutralize the earlier rumor about
Henry’s presenting her with gifts. Considering the Seymours’ social sta-
tus and political ambitions, surely they would not have permitted their
female relative to refuse presents from the king.45
Actually, Chapuys’s surviving ambiguous statement about Jane’s sta-
tus at court seems to have been partially confirmed by the oral tradi-
tion repeated later by Thomas Fuller, who failed to name Jane as either
Anne’s or Katherine’s servant. When she first arrived at court, Fuller
noted that Anne hurt her hand when snatching a pendant from Jane’s
neck, only to discover it concealed a picture of the king that he had
given her.46
In 1536, when Jane would have reached her twenty-fifth year, if she
remained a maiden, her single status must have distressed her, since her
parents had found husbands for Elizabeth and Dorothy, her younger
sisters. Before 1534, Elizabeth had wed the much older Sir Anthony
Ughtred, who died that year, and Dorothy, perhaps in 1533–1534, gave
birth to her son, John, by Clement Smith, who received a knighthood in
1547. The dates of their weddings are unknown.47 Normally, in arrang-
ing marriages, parents privileged the eldest daughter over the younger
ones. Since wives held higher social status than unmarried women, if
parents did not match the eldest daughter with a husband first, they in
effect demoted her from her superior status as the firstborn girl.
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  29

It is also true that Jane’s parents might have attempted ­unsuccessfully

to find a husband for her. In 1532, Cromwell made a note to speak
to the king for Mr. Seymour’s daughter for a man named Elderton.
Unfortunately, he did not state the daughter’s first name. Moreover,
Jane Dormer, who married Gómez Suárez de Figueroa y Córdoba,
duke of Feria, and moved to Spain, later recalled that Sir Francis Bryan
had attempted to arrange a marriage for Jane to Lady Feria’s father,
Sir William Dormer, but his parents preferred to match him with Mary
Sidney. Calling Jane the niece of Bryan rather than his cousin, Lady Feria
also believed that Bryan accompanied her to court to join Anne’s house-
hold. Unfortunately, she offered no dates.48
Reasons existed for failing to privilege the elder daughter besides the
possibility of failing to find an appropriate suitor. In Anne Boleyn’s case,
for example, she lived abroad, where it was expected that her royal mis-
tress would match her with a noble spouse. Meanwhile, in England, her
younger sister, Mary, wed William Carey, merely a gentleman’s younger
son. When Anne returned home, her parents planned to marry her to
a nobleman, Lord James Butler, future earl of Ormond. Other reasons
for the younger girls to wed first might include that their eldest sis-
ter’s betrothed unexpectedly had to delay their wedding while their
parents found husbands for them. A severe illness could also cause the
­postponement of the eldest girl’s matchmaking.
Little is known about Jane before early 1536, but Chapuys’s refer-
ences to her complexion when he saw her in May could be interpreted
as evidence that she had recently recovered from an illness. He described
her as over 25 years of age, as no great beauty, and so fair she appeared
rather pale than otherwise.49 Perhaps she had held a position in Anne’s
household but had left it because of illness or the lack of a marriage, and
returned to court in 1536 for the New Year’s celebrations.
In January, whatever her status, Jane certainly attracted the king’s
attention, and after Anne’s miscarriage, perhaps by March, he decided
to marry her. During that month, he probably ordered Cromwell to
leak information to Chapuys, providing proof of her chaste and mod-
est behavior to offset earlier rumors of his having presented her with
gifts. He himself had little time for wooing Jane at Greenwich, since
on February 4 at Westminster, he attended the opening of the final ses-
sion of the Reformation Parliament. He could and did alternate between
Greenwich and Westminster, but during the last days of February and
in March, the press of parliamentary business often kept him occupied.
30  R.M. WARNICKE

After dissolving Parliament in April, he returned to Greenwich for the

Easter celebrations.
In early May, after Anne’s imprisonment, Sir Nicholas Carew escorted
Jane to Beddington, his home near Croydon, and on May 14 to Chelsea.
Three days later, Cranmer annulled Henry’s marriage to Anne. One day
after her execution on May 19, Henry and Jane, whom Cranmer dis-
pensed from the required banns and from the third degree of affinity,
as they were fifth cousins, were betrothed, probably at York Place, and
on May 30, they were married in the queen’s closet there. On June 4
at Greenwich, Henry had her proclaimed queen, and she processed with
him to the chapel royal. Later that day, they dined in state in her pres-
ence chamber. On Corpus Christi Day, June 15, they rode in a proces-
sion with her ladies, numerous churchmen, crown officials, and members
of Parliament from York Place to Westminster Abbey, where they heard
mass. A “great multitude” of their subjects rejoiced at the sight. Henry
planned to hold a coronation for her and had actually begun finalizing
arrangements for it to be held on the Sunday before All Hallows day in
1537, but by then she had died after childbirth. 50
Although Henry had sired a son with Jane, he sought another wife,
hoping for more sons, and decided to wed a foreign-born bride, mar-
rying Anne of Cleves in January 1540. As he could not consummate
this marriage, he chose to woo her young English maiden of honor,
Katherine Howard, who was probably then 17 years old. Scholars have
sometimes credited factional politics for her appointment to Anne
of Cleves’s household. Allegedly, her conservative uncle, Thomas
Howard, third duke of Norfolk, an ally of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of
Winchester, brought her to court to gain Henry’s favor. No surviving
evidence proves the two lords acted as allies. The influence of her pater-
nal step-grandmother, Agnes Howard, dowager duchess of Norfolk,
with whom she resided, more likely secured the court position for her.
Lady Norfolk probably paid for the costs of her appointment as a maiden
in December 1539 since the girls’ families had to supply bedding and
expensive clothes suitable for their royal position. After he decided to
marry Katherine, the duchess sent 500 marks to Henry with a bond
requiring a refund if her step-granddaughter died before the wedding.51
Little is known about Henry’s courtship of Katherine, to whom he
gave two gifts in April and May 1540. As the first gift included the for-
feited goods and chattels of two murderers, which mirrored a present to
Katherine of Aragon, as the princess of Wales, in June 1509, it probably
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  31

meant that he had decided by then that she was to become his new wife
as soon as he was divorced from Anne of Cleves.52 As to the beginning
of his interest in her, Lady Norfolk claimed that he had been attracted
to her from the first moment he saw her, some weeks before the arrival
of Anne of Cleves in England. In late June 1540, he returned Katherine,
who had kept her premarital sexual liaisons a secret, to Lady Norfolk’s
Lambeth home while rusticating Anne at Richmond. At least twice
Henry visited Katherine in late June at Lambeth. They were married
on July 28 at Oatlands, like his other weddings to his subjects, without
­public festivities. On August 8 at Hampton Court Henry introduced her
as queen, and on August 15 he had morning prayers said in the churches
for him, Katherine, and Prince Edward.
The attendance at court of Katherine Parr is even less well docu-
mented than Jane’s, since the earliest evidence for her presence is in a
letter dated June 20, 1543, which John Dudley, Viscount Lisle (future
duke of Northumberland), sent to her brother, William, Lord Parr
(future marquess of Northampton), revealing the presence of Katherine
and her married sister, Anne Herbert, at Greenwich with the king’s
daughters.53 In her biography of Katherine, Susan James alleged that a
paid tailor’s bill for clothing purchased for her unnamed daughter rep-
resents a money gift from Henry to Katherine, who was still the wife of
John Neville, Lord Latimer, for clothes she had purchased for Princess
Mary. It was dated February 16, some two weeks before the March 2
funeral of Latimer, her ailing second husband. David Starkey has cor-
rectly noted that after becoming queen, Katherine belatedly paid the
clothing bill for her stepdaughter, Lady Margaret Neville. Sir Thomas
Arundell, her chancellor as queen, authorized the payment.54 No surviv-
ing evidence proves that in February she flirted with Henry at court or
had any association with her future stepdaughter, Mary.
Another controversy concerns Katherine’s relationship to Sir Thomas
Seymour, whom she married after Henry’s death. She wrote to Seymour
in the spring 1547 that she did not want him “to think that this hon-
est goodwill” to him “proceeds of any sudden motion or passion;…
my mind was fully bent, the other time I was at liberty, to marry” him
“before any man I know. Howbeit, God withstood my will therein most
vehemently for a time,” finally causing her to denounce her “own will”
and “follow his will.”55 Scholars have apparently ignored two salient facts
in her statement. First, she explained that when she was last “at liberty”
to marry, she selected Seymour above all others. The modern allegation
32  R.M. WARNICKE

that she considered marrying two different men, Henry and Seymour,
before her husband’s death in 1543 greatly dishonors her. Second, she
wished to inform Seymour that her interest in him was not “sudden”
since those feelings had developed earlier. By these words, she seems to
have implied that she had not revealed to him her earlier “goodwill.”
Why else would she have felt the need to inform him in 1547 of those
feelings?
In 1543, she probably decided to visit her sister, Anne, and her hus-
band, William Herbert, (future earl of Pembroke), a gentleman of the
king’s privy chamber at court, then at St. James Palace, during the cel-
ebrations after Easter, which fell on March 25. The Herberts had surely
joined her in mourning the death of Latimer, whose funeral took place
at St. Paul’s Cathedral on March 2 and could have extended an invita-
tion for her to accompany them to court, a convenient destination for
Katherine, as she then resided in a London townhouse. The new widow,
perhaps eager to remain in court society, found Seymour attractive, per-
haps because of his looks and demeanor, but perhaps also because of his
kinship to the future Edward VI. As Katherine belonged to a politically
ambitious family, she must have thought it would be opportune for her
and her relatives if she wed the future king’s uncle. By her testimony,
God forced her instead to marry the future king’s father.
She must have previously met Henry, although no record of it sur-
vives. The nobility formed a small community, the members with whom
Henry was mostly acquainted. After Latimer’s return to favor, after his
participation in the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536, he attended the House
of Lords in 1539, 1540, and 1542. At those times as in 1542, he prob-
ably escorted his wife to their London townhouse and possibly to some
social functions. She might also have achieved a kind of celebrity status
because some rebels in January 1537 had held her and her two stepchil-
dren as hostages. Henry’s desire to marry her, if they only met sometime
after March 2, 1543, would seem hurried, but scholars have defamed the
character of this pious woman when they claim that she flirted with two
men at court while at home her husband lay dying.56
In early June 1543, the king left for Harwich while she prepared
for their wedding. On June 20, as noted, she attended the court at
Greenwich, which Henry had reached the previous day. Like his earlier
marriages to his other subjects, theirs was a private affair. On July 10,
Cranmer dispensed with the banns, and 2 days later, in the queen’s privy
chamber at Hampton Court, Gardiner officiated, utilizing the Sarum
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  33

rite. The 20 witnesses included the king’s two daughters; Katherine’s

­sister, Lady Herbert; and her sister’s husband, William.57
Of his weddings to the two foreign-born brides, the one to Katherine
of Aragon followed a pattern similar to those of the Englishwomen pri-
marily because she had remained in the realm after her husband Arthur’s
death in 1502. Monarchs usually betrothed and sometimes had their
heirs married at young ages, as had Henry VII when choosing Arthur’s
wife. After the prince’s death, his father had negotiated an arrangement
for his second son, the future Henry VIII who was born in 1491, to
marry Katherine, who was born in 1485 and who was therefore 6 years
older than him. On March 25, 1503, they were betrothed. That same
year, Julius II issued a bull dispensing with the impediment of affinity in
the first degree collateral (her marriage to Arthur). For diplomatic rea-
sons, on June 17, 1505, Henry VII required his son secretly to renounce
his betrothal. After his accession in 1509, one of his first important deci-
sions was to wed Katherine.58 They were quietly married on June 11 at
the oratory of the Franciscan Observants just by the wall of Greenwich
Palace, but their oaths did contain diplomatic references. Henry
answered, “I will” to the following question: “Most illustrious prince,
is it your will to fulfill the treaty of marriage concluded by your father…
and the parents of the Princes of Wales…and, as the Pope has dispensed
with this marriage, to take the Princess who is here present for your law-
ful wife?” Katherine also swore but with words expressed slightly differ-
ently as “Most illustrious princess.”59
He credited his dying father with advising him to wed her. Lady
Richmond surely approved of the marriage, for at her month’s mind,
Bishop Fisher claimed that she had viewed Arthur’s marriage to
Katherine as a “great triumph.” The new queen was, after all, the child
of Isabella, queen of Castile, and Ferdinand, king of Aragon, and pos-
sessed a substantial dowry of 200,000 crowns.60 Henry VII, who had
wooed other brides for himself after his consort died in 1503 and also
for his heir, could easily have concluded that Katherine was the best can-
didate for his son. As Lucy Wooding noted, Henry VIII married the
“woman who had secured his father’s most diplomatic achievement” and
to whom he might also have been “attracted.”61 From the beginning of
his reign, furthermore, Henry VIII sought diplomatic agreements with
Ferdinand in preparation for warfare against France. In April 1509, John
Stile, the English resident ambassador in Spain, claimed that he had
received two letters from Henry VII supporting this marriage.62 Edward
34  R.M. WARNICKE

Hall’s chronicle also explains that Henry’s councilors had encouraged

the union because of her large dowry.63 Public festivities did accompany
their shared coronation but not the wedding.64
Henry’s union with Anne of Cleves represents the closest parallel of
his six marriages to other diplomatic ones in early modern Europe.65
In 1537, after Jane’s death, as Henry’s councilors began discussing the
selection of a foreign wife for him, Cromwell ordered agents abroad to
assemble a candidate pool, of which three noblewomen gained the king’s
attention: Mary of Guise, Christina of Denmark, and Anne of Cleves. He
soon dropped Mary from consideration because Francis I had promised
her to James V. Henry next turned to Christina, a niece of Charles V, but
she would not marry Henry without a papal dispensation that he could
not obtain.
The alliance of Francis and Charles in 1538 and Paul III’s publication
of the renewed bull of excommunication against Henry in 1539 led him
to consider seriously Anne of Cleves’s candidacy. Although John, duke of
Cleves, had entered into antipapal alliances, including marrying his eldest
daughter, Sybilla, to a Lutheran, John Frederick, duke of Saxony, Cleves
had outlawed Lutheran doctrine in his duchy. Actually, Henry’s decision
was not an unusual diplomatic move. Later, when Charles and Francis
repudiated their alliance, the French king himself turned to Cleves for a
peace treaty. In 1539, the Cleves negotiations followed some usual pro-
cedures. Ambassadors Nicholas Wotton and Richard Beard discussed the
match with William, Anne’s brother and their father’s ducal successor.
The Englishmen arranged for Hans Holbein the Younger to paint por-
traits of Anne and her sister, Amelia. Wotton praised as a good likeness
the portrait of Anne, whom he described as a beauty. After viewing it,
Henry decided to pursue marriage with her. At first her brother proved
reluctant to enter into these negotiations because of the expected dow-
ry’s size, but also because his father had signed a treaty with Antoine I,
duke of Lorraine, which promised William control of Guelders on the
condition that Anne wed Lorraine’s heir, Francis. Finally William sent an
embassy of Cleves and Saxon diplomats to England.
After the representatives signed the marriage treaty on October 6
that set the amount of the dowry, the procedures for Anne’s travel to
England, and clarification of her inheritance rights, two unusual events
occurred. Two male procurators, representing Anne, married her to
Henry with the usual vow of per verba de praesenti, but no reference was
made to the traditional procedure of the groom’s proxy also marrying
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  35

the bride at her home. Henry next waived the dowry of 100,000 gold
florins (25,000 English marks), recognizing Cleves’s impoverished treas-
ury. On November 26, Anne began an overland journey. On December
11, she reached Calais, where storms stranded her until December 27.
Once in England, a number of aristocratic greeters welcomed her, as was
the usual procedure. They escorted her north and arrived on New Year’s
Eve at the Bishop’s Palace in Rochester, where Henry made his now
famous incognito visit. This was an expected event since before their
public meetings with their foreign spouses whom they had not yet met,
early modern kings first sought private meetings with them. Louis XIV
was the last ruler to perform this ceremony.
Despite his unfavorable initial impression of Anne, Henry proceeded
with her scheduled reception at Greenwich, the only public demonstra-
tion, as Anne arrived during the holy days of Epiphany. Twelfth Night
was one of the religious holidays for which written royal procedures
specified the rituals to be followed for the drinking of wassail and for the
eating of spices.66 The waived dowry and the shortness of time for prepa-
rations before her expected arrival might also have influenced this deci-
sion. Attended by his councilors and other royal officials, the king, along
with numerous representatives of the English aristocracy, rode their
horses onto Blackheath Common to welcome their queen in an impres-
sive ceremony.
Henry briefly delayed the wedding after discovering that the Cleves
ambassadors had failed to bring a copy of Anne’s marriage contract with
Lorraine’s heir for his churchmen’s determination of her marital status.
Finally, worried about a possible Franco-Imperial crusade against him,
Henry requested that Cranmer, who must have issued a license dispens-
ing with the prohibition of marriage and sexual intercourse on holy
days, married them in the king’s closet at Greenwich on Epiphany. She
wore a dress of cloth of gold, and a coronel of gold and precious stones
entwined with a garland of rosemary, a Cleves addition, symbolizing
remembrance and constancy. After mass, they returned to their separate
quarters before feasting at the usual wedding dinner. Anne then attended
evensong, as no afternoon functions were scheduled. At the evening sup-
per, a masque formed part of the entertainment. Usually elaborate public
celebrations for diplomatic marriages occurred over several days.
Both of these Tudor kings failed to follow the traditional diplomatic
marriage practices that were embodied in treaties and accompanied by
public rituals and celebrations. Henry VII needed to wed Elizabeth to
36  R.M. WARNICKE

gain the support of her Yorkist allies and hoped thereby to end the civil
wars. Henry VIII’s motivation for marrying his English consorts derived
in great part from personal preference, but after he had his union with
Katherine of Aragon annulled, marriage with the daughters of prestig-
ious royal dynasties that remained Roman Catholic proved impossible to
arrange. Because after Arthur’s death Katherine had stayed in England,
Henry decided to wed her in a ceremony without the usual pomp and
circumstance of diplomatic unions. Whether the primary motive was the
size of her dowry, his father’s last wishes, his own private preferences,
or his desire to build an alliance against the French remains uncertain.
Perhaps all these issues combined to form his decision. Finally, his mar-
riage to Anne of Cleves, partly because she brought no dowry and per-
haps also because she arrived during the Christmas holy days, led him to
provide her with an official greeting but no further public celebrations.
Only three Tudor consorts gained the honor of a coronation cer-
emony. Often monarchs scheduled them near the beginning of their
public recognitions as queens, as were Katherine of Aragon’s and Anne
Boleyn’s. The differences in the three rituals, beginning with Elizabeth
of York’s, will be discussed, but first an examination of monarchs’ coro-
nations provides a context for their consorts’ rituals. According to tradi-
tion, for a man already reigning as monarch to assume his royal status
in the most complete sense and to receive God’s grace to perform his
kingship, he had to be inaugurated into his position by legal and eccle-
siastical rites.67 These signified the continuity of ancient ceremonies and
represented the received version of them. As public demonstrations that
embodied dimensions both legal and religious, the latter making them
reminiscent of bishops’ consecrations, the coronations offered opportu-
nities for kings to appear not only publicly as God’s favored ones but also
as reflections or images of divinity.68
These ceremonies furthermore publicly confirmed the monarchs’ rela-
tionship to their subjects through the royal oath and their nobles’ posi-
tive acclamations to their accessions. Thus, they effectively bonded the
royal dynasty hierarchically to their nobility. Through their participation,
noblemen could emphasize the honorable and ancient heritage of their
families and their places in the social hierarchy. Their strong desire to
participate led kings to establish claims courts that confirmed the tradi-
tional rights of their male subjects to perform various coronation func-
tions. This service proved also to be lucrative. The barons of the Cinque
Ports, for example, who bore the canopy over the head of the monarch
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  37

to Westminster Abbey, could claim as their fee the canopy itself. London
merchants likewise profited from these occasions because of the crown’s
need to purchase expensive items, including jewelry and clothing, and
because they usually included royal entries into their city.69 In addition,
the rites provided entertainment for the masses and rewards for some
of them, as the royal almoner distributed to the poor a part of the ray
(striped) cloth on which the royal procession marched from Westminster
Palace to the abbey. Finally, the pageantry could impress foreign powers
with the realm’s wealth and magnificence.
By contrast, the queens’ coronations demonstrated divine approval of
their marriages and celebrated their status as the kings’ wives, but not
as authority figures. The anointing and crowning of queens seems to
have arisen because of the emergence of the hereditary royal succession.
The coronation publicly not only designated her as his legitimate wife
but also as the possible mother of his future heirs. Laynesmith has con-
vincingly argued that the coronation may be seen “as the construction
of the queen as a part of the king’s public body, both its presentation of
a series of ideals through which her role might complement his, and the
ritual by which she shared in the emblems of his divinely ordained posi-
tion.”70 They presented the women as exemplars of female chastity and
conferred a “sanctity of character” on them as the mistresses of the royal
households.71 Surviving written instructions describe how the king and
his councillors should greet a foreign queen. Her English escort’s duty
was to meet her at the seashore and lead her to the king, who awaited
her for his public greeting at the place where the wedding was to occur.
With that ceremony accomplished, she was then to proceed to her coro-
nation. Thus, these instructions, although without stating the reasons for
the coronation to take place shortly after the marriage, would seem to
confirm Laynesmith’s explanation.72
Queens’ coronations also called for the participation of representa-
tives of the entire population since ladies as well as gentlemen held roles
in them.73 While claims courts confirmed noblemen’s traditional func-
tions on these special days, the queens still required the assistance of
noblewomen and the ladies of their household. Despite the importance
of the coronations to the queens, at various stages in the process, some
of the rituals clearly indicated their subordination to their husbands.
Unlike kings, they neither swore a traditional oath defining their author-
ity nor participated in a kind of election process when the archbishop
of Canterbury requested a “formal acclamation” of the new king’s reign
38  R.M. WARNICKE

by the noblemen present. During their anointing with holy oil, remi-
niscent of Old Testament usage and representing the gifts of the Holy
Spirit, the archbishop touched queens with the sign of the cross only
in two places, the brow or forehead and breast, but he touched kings
on the head, breast, shoulders, hands, and elbows. The monarchs’ rit-
ual included more ornaments and clothing than their consorts’. These
had been housed at Westminster Abbey since the twelfth century, when
Prior Osbert of Clare had gained the right by citing a forged document
for the monks to keep and protect the regalia, said to have belonged to
St. Edward the Confessor.74
By tradition coronations were held on saints’ feast days or Sundays,
but in practice kings usually chose feast days, although Henry VIII
and Anne chose a Sunday, Whitsunday, second only to Easter as a holy
day.75 Earlier in 1487, Henry VII scheduled Elizabeth’s coronation for
November 25, the feast day of St. Catherine, who was venerated as a
patron of virginity and purity and also of philosophers and universities.
On November 7, the common council of London voted her a gift of
1000 marks and began preparations for her arrival for the coronation.76
The ceremonies began with a new tradition: she was the first queen to
journey before her coronation by barge from Greenwich to the Tower of
London. Accompanied by the king’s mother and other ladies and lords,
Elizabeth wore royal apparel. The lord mayor, sheriffs, aldermen, and
members of the London crafts welcomed her party in barges decorated
with banners and streamers adorned with insignia identifying their crafts.
On one huge barge, the Bachelors’ Barge, a red dragon, an allusion
to the Welsh red dragon, spit flames into the river. Some other barges
presented unspecified “pageants” for her entertainment. Trumpeters
and minstrels accompanied the procession and announced her arrival at
Tower Wharf, where Henry greeted her.77
The next day, following the tradition since 1399, Henry created
knights of the bath, his numbering 14. On Saturday, November 24, the
queen left the Tower, attired in white cloth of gold damask with her sis-
ter, Lady Cecily Plantagenet, carrying her train and with a bejeweled cir-
clet of gold on her head. With her blonde hair hanging down her back,
as was customary, as it symbolized her future fertility, she rode in a lit-
ter under a canopy of cloth of gold. All other participants wore splendid
and ornate clothing representing their social status. This and other tradi-
tional ceremonies presented the royal family amid numerous other peo-
ple who could be identified by their dress. As R. Malcolm Smuts pointed
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  39

out: “Few things expressed the majesty of kinship more vividly than the
sight of hundreds of brilliantly dressed men and women, walking or rid-
ing with solemn dignity around an even more resplendent monarch.”78
The leaders of Elizabeth’s train included the knights of the bath and
other knights and esquires, the Garter king of arms, heralds, and pur-
suivants, some noblemen, esquires of honor, the mayor of London, the
marshal, the constable (Thomas Stanley, earl of Derby, the king’s step-
father), the great chamberlain, and the high steward, (Jasper Tudor,
duke of Bedford). Sir Roger Cotton, master of her horse, followed her
litter, leading a riderless horse of estate on which was placed a sidesad-
dle of red cloth of gold. After him came six henchmen and the queen’s
ladies. Along the newly cleansed streets, they encountered members of
the crafts dressed in their liveries and singing children costumed either
as angels or virgins. At the conduit in Cornhill and in Cheapside, red
and white wine flowed.79 Finally, after arriving at the palace, she enjoyed
a void, a drink of wine accompanied by spices or comfits, and retired to
her chamber.
The coronation on the 25th seems to have followed the Liber
Regalis, a text of the fourth recension of the coronation ordo, written
in 1308.80 It began with the procession to the abbey from the palace;
Elizabeth wore purple velvet clothing with a train borne by her sister,
Lady Cecily, and with a circlet of gold with pearls and precious stones
on her head. Each queen possessed her own personal circlet, a gift from
her husband, which did not form a part of the royal regalia in the jewel
house, as did the crown later placed on her head by the archbishop of
Canterbury.81 Various members of the aristocracy led the procession:
esquires, knights, and knights of the bath, noblemen, and churchmen,
including abbots and the monks of Westminster Abbey. One of the 15
bishops present carried St. Edward’s chalice and another his paten for
the offertory. Following them came the archbishop of York, the Garter
king of arms, the mayor of London, the constable, and the earl marshal.
Two noblemen carried the queen’s ivory rod with a gold dove on the
top, recalling the pastoral duties of a shepherd’s crook, and the silver-gilt
scepter, a symbol of royal authority, with a dove representing the Holy
Spirit. That the scepter was made of silver gilt indicated her “inferiority”
in rank to the king, whose scepter was made of gold, the more precious
metal.82 Next came the great chamberlain and the high steward, who
carried the crown for the coronation.83 The queen’s crown, according to
inventories, would have been a closed imperial crown, set with sapphires,
40  R.M. WARNICKE

rubies, and pearls, weighing altogether three pounds.84 In stocking feet

and escorted by two bishops, she walked under the purple silk canopy
held by the barons of the Cinque Ports with her ladies trailing behind
her. Although the heralds and sergeants attempted to keep the crowd
back on either side, it surged forward, disturbing the ladies’ procession
to obtain pieces of the ray cloth, causing in the rush the death of several
commoners.
In the abbey, the queen moved through the choir to a platform, called
a pulpit, and sat on her royal seat decorated with cloth of gold. During
the ceremony, as she performed her parts, John Morton, archbishop
of Canterbury, and other religious leaders said various prayers, psalms,
litany, orisons, and collects in Latin. The choir also sang holy songs.
Presently she descended from her throne and before the high altar pros-
trated herself on the floor, previously covered with carpet and cushions.
Afterward, she knelt before Morton, who took the circlet from her head
and anointed her brow with a special holy oil, the chrism, a combination
of olive oil and balsam, which, according to tradition, had been given by
the Virgin Mary to St. Thomas Becket, who had placed it in a golden
eagle.85 Morton also anointed Elizabeth with holy olive oil only on her
breast. After she closed her gown, he blessed her ring, which recognized
her roles as a supporter of the church and as “a leader of her household’s
spirituality,” sprinkled it with holy water, and slid it on the fourth fin-
ger of her right hand. Before placing the crown on her head, which an
attendant covered with a coif to protect the chrism, he blessed it and
instructed her to seek wisdom and virtue. After receiving from the arch-
bishop the scepter in her right hand and the rod in her left hand, she
ascended to her seat, her ladies following her. When the offertory began,
two bishops led her down to the high altar, her scepter and rod borne
before her. After offering, she returned to her throne, and when the
Agnus Dei began, Morton approached to bless her and she responded,
“Amen.” During the singing of the Agnus Dei, a bishop brought her the
pax to kiss. She then descended to the high altar, where two bishops held
a towel in front of her, and she “lowly inclining herself to the ground,”
confessed and received the sacrament. The queen returned to her throne
until mass ended, when she again went down to the high altar.86
Presently she followed Morton and others, who crossed over to the
altar of the shrine of St. Edward. The archbishop put her crown on that
altar and returned her circlet to her, as the crown was too heavy for her
to wear during the subsequent festivities. On the right side of the abbey,
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  41

between the altar and the pulpit, stood a stage covered with cloth of
arras. On it sat the king, his mother, and other ladies and gentlemen.
Since kings had the highest social status, they usually did not participate
in the rituals of their relatives, even the funerals of family members, for
example, since chief mourners of the same sex as the deceased performed
the prominent roles in that final ritual, as directed by heralds. This was
also true of the behavior of the aristocracy generally.
The queen returned to the palace in procession and left for her cham-
ber. Later she entered Westminster Hall, where the high steward, whose
horse’s trapping was decorated with a red rose and red dragons, the earl
Marshal, and the constable rode on horseback to keep order amid the
press of people. The participants sat at nine tables for the customary
feast. After washing her hands, the queen sat at the center table, Morton
to her right, and her aunt, Katherine Woodville Tudor, duchess of
Bedford, and Lady Cecily to her left. Two countesses knelt on either side
of the queen, holding a red kerchief before her as she ate dishes from the
two courses. During the celebration, on a stage set in a window on the
left side of the hall and decorated with arras, the king and his mother
observed the feasting. Also witnessing the festivities, the Garter king of
arms, other heralds, and pursuivants sat on a stage on the left side of the
hall. At the end of the two courses, they descended, made their obei-
sance, and then proclaimed her as the queen three times in five places in
the hall. During this saluting, the minstrels played music. Afterward, she
dined on fruit and wafers; then she again washed her hands and went to
the void. The mayor of London served her with ipocras and spices before
she departed for her chamber.
Normally kings held tournaments to celebrate coronations, and
Henry had issued an imprest of 100 marks in October for the prepara-
tion of jousts for hers, but as Parliament was still in session, he seems to
have postponed them. The immediate celebrations included only a grand
feast for the ladies on the 26th. First, the king, queen, and the king’s
mother attended mass in St. Stephen’s Chapel, accompanied by 80 noble
and gentle ladies. Afterward, these ladies dined in the parliament cham-
ber with the queen. The king’s mother sat on her right and Katherine,
Lady Bedford, on her left. At two side tables sat the noble and gentle
ladies. After dining, the ladies danced. The next day the queen returned
to Greenwich.87
The joint ceremony of Henry and Katherine of Aragon, scheduled for
June 24, 1509, Midsummer’s Day, was also the Feast of the Nativity of
42  R.M. WARNICKE

St. John the Baptist. Before the shared coronation, the London com-
mons voted to present the king with £1000, two-thirds of it for him and
the other third, or some £333, for the queen.88 In contrast, Elizabeth
had received 1000 marks (£666), and Anne Boleyn received the same
amount.89 On June 22, according to Hall’s chronicle, Katherine accom-
panied the king, who traveled on land across London Bridge to the
Tower of London. As no previous king had participated in a river entry
into London for his coronation, he must have decided to continue that
tradition. On June 22, Henry created 24 knights of the bath, and the
next day the royal couple processed to the palace. For the ceremonies,
Henry relied on a device especially prepared for him, as did his father
before him, that was based on the Liber Regalis.90
Unlike Elizabeth, Katherine was obviously not the featured figure at
this shared coronation; most of the attention seems to have focused on
Henry. Edward Hall’s chronicle notes that on their route to the palace
they saw virgins, but he did not mention angels. He added that priests
and clerks, dressed in rich copes and holding crosses and censers, censed
the royal couple as they rode by them. Although Hall provided far less
information about Katherine and her attendants than the king and his
retinue, the chronicler did relate that she, who was “beautiful and goodly
to behold,” wore embroidered white satin, that her hair hung down to
her shoulders, and that she wore on her head “a coronel with rich jew-
els.”91
In their procession from the palace to the abbey, noblemen preceded
her, carrying her crown, as well as an ivory rod topped by a gold dove
and a gold scepter topped by a gold dove from St. Edward’s regalia.92
Following tradition, the king and queen, both dressed in crimson, pro-
cessed to the platform, where her throne sat to his left, a step or two
lower than his. At their coronations, kings always wore a red parliament
robe of silk and ermines that reached to their feet, while the queens, who
were crowned alone, usually wore the customary purple outfit. When he
descended for his anointing, she sat on a stool on the left side of the high
altar. As he prostrated before the high altar, she knelt in prayer. After
his crowning, he returned to the scaffold, and William Warham, arch-
bishop of Canterbury, then anointed her with holy olive oil only and
crowned her. Apparently the chrism could only be used once during the
ceremony. Before rejoining Henry on the scaffold, she “made a mod-
est inclination before the king’s majesty” in a gesture of reverence. Later
she descended with him for the celebration of mass, then crossed over
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  43

with him to St. Edward’s shrine, where Warham removed her crown and
placed it on the altar. After she had changed her clothes for a purple out-
fit in a curtained-off area, Warham presented her with her coronel, and
the royal couple and their attendants returned to the palace.93
At the banquet for Henry and Katherine, Edward Stafford, duke of
Buckingham, held the position of high steward. The participants sat at
the usual nine tables, the king’s on the right hand and the queen’s on
the left. Near the end of the feast, the mayor of London offered ipocras
only to the king. After the void, as usual, the royal couple retired to their
chambers.94
The next day, before the customary jousts and tournaments took
place at Westminster Palace, the king and queen entered a specially con-
structed pavilion adorned with rich cloth and tapestry. The palace also
contained a fountain over which stood a castle topped by a closed impe-
rial crown gilded with roses for Henry and pomegranates for Katherine.
A gentlewoman acting as Lady Pallas came forward in a pageant car with
a castle to offer eight “scholars” to the king for the purpose of defending
against all challengers. Shortly thereafter, eight knights led by gentleman
on horseback approached the queen, requesting that she permit them to
do feats of arms for the ladies and fight the scholars of Lady Pallas. The
jousts then took place.95
The next day, the pageantry continued, with the knights of Lady
Pallas appearing armed for battle. The challengers, now claiming to be
servants of Diana, brought in a pageant car on which stood a park com-
prising artificial trees and shrubs. It had gates that were opened, letting
some deer escape. Greyhounds then chased and killed the deer, which
the knights presented to the queen and her ladies. Afterward, Katherine
and her ladies requested that Henry decide whether the knights should
once again compete against each other. He granted their request. The
jousts were to commence, but first the servants of Diana asked that if
Lady Pallas’s knights won, they could claim the deer and the greyhounds
that killed them, and if Diana’s knights won, they could claim the swords
of the vanquished only. When Katherine and her ladies sent this request
to the king, he disliked the suggestion. After the jousts ended, each man
instead gained the prizes he deserved.96
That Hall’s account of Anne’s coronation in 1533 is more detailed
than his narrative of the shared coronation of Katherine and Henry
was partly because of the chronicler’s age. Born in 1497, he was still a
child in 1509 and had to rely only on others’ sources for his comments.
44  R.M. WARNICKE

Although his chronicle on the later parts of Henry’s reign also reflects
the use of documents, Hall was most likely a witness to Anne’s coro-
nation, which occurred some 24 years after Katherine’s shared one. It
clearly celebrated her queenship more elaborately than that of either of
her two Tudor predecessors.97
On May 29, 1533, in response to the king’s command, the London
crafts prepared a river welcome for Anne that included many more
barges than at the entry of 1487, some 50 in all, and more elaborate
entertainment. Anne, dressed in cloth of gold and accompanied by
many ladies and gentlemen, including her father, Thomas Boleyn, earl
of Wiltshire, set out for London from Greenwich. Another eyewit-
ness account claimed the whole river was filled with boats. The “great
dragon,” color unspecified, remained a part of the entry, but he threw
his fire from a foist, an armed barge, rather than the Bachelors’ Barge.
Another foist carried a mount on which stood a falcon crowned with “a
root of gold environed with white roses and red,” the queen’s device. As
usual, the king waited at the Tower for her arrival. The next day, he initi-
ated the ceremonies that resulted in the knighting of 18 knights of the
bath.98
On May 31, dressed in white cloth of tissue with her hair hanging
down and wearing a circlet with rich jewels, Anne rode in a litter carried
by 16 knights from the Tower to Westminster Hall on streets the citi-
zens had prepared with gravel and with colorful tapestries and streamers.
That some participants in her entry differed from those of her predeces-
sors had political and diplomatic repercussions. Leading the procession
were 12 Frenchmen representing the ambassador, Jean de sieur de Polizi,
bailly of Troyes, who processed with Carlo Capello, the Venetian ambas-
sador. Also marching in her procession were two squires representing
the duchies of Normandy and Guyenne (Aquitaine), heretofore present
only at a king’s or shared coronation; perhaps their presence reempha-
sized England’s imperial claims as expressed in the recently passed Act in
Restraint of Appeals statute.99
At 12 sites along the way, Hall gave detailed information about the
pageants and entertainment.100 Only a few will be addressed, and it
should be noted that their magnificence did not meet the standards of
the London entry for Katherine in 1501, which will be described here
in Chap. 6, when she arrived to marry Arthur. In 1533, children at
Fenchurch, dressed as merchants, recited verses to Anne in French and
in English. At the Steelyard, the Hanseatic League presented a pageant
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  45

with Mount Pernassus and with the Helicon fountain, from which four
streams of wine met together in a little cup above it. This and several
other sites had running wine in their pageants. The Leaden Hall pageant
featured red and white roses and a falcon on which an angel placed a
closed imperial crown of gold. This same pageant also featured St. Anne,
the patroness of women in labor, and her issue. One of three children
gave an oration on the fertility of the saint, who, of course, gave birth
to the Virgin Mary, and trusted that Queen Anne, who was pregnant,
would bear fruit; presumably her unborn child was expected to be a
“type of saviour.” As Richard Osburg has noted, while some of the pag-
eants did have classical motifs, this pageant at Leaden Hall, the one at
Paul’s Gate, and the one at Fleet Street appropriated a medieval theme
signified by Anne’s badge (the crowned falcon); St. Anne, the veni amica
coronoberis (Come my love, thou shalt be crowned) pageant, and the
Tower, the cardinal virtues, respectively. These produced the theme of
the queen “as the ‘virga Jesse,’” providing a religious type for her.101
Finally, her procession reached Westminster Hall, where after receiving
the void of spices and ipocras, which she shared with her ladies and lords,
she left for Whitehall.
On June 1, Whitsunday, Anne arrived at Westminster Hall clad in
purple velvet with a circlet on her head. Only those events that differed
from the previous Tudor queens’ coronations are addressed here. At the
beginning of the procession, after the knights and esquires, marched the
London aldermen. Of London citizens, usually only the lord mayor, who
had preceded the officers of arms, participated in this event. Immediately
before the queen went two noblemen carrying an ivory rod with the
dove and a scepter, as in Katherine’s procession specified as gold. Instead
of the high steward, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk (the king’s
brother-in-law), carrying the queen’s crown, John de Vere, fifteenth Earl
of Oxford and the great chamberlain, gained that honor.
Inside the abbey, the ritual proceeded as usual until the crown-
ing, when Cranmer placed the crown of St. Edward on Anne’s head.
Traditionally archbishops crowned only kings with St. Edward’s crown.
After the choir sang Te Deum, Cranmer removed the crown, which
weighed about five pounds, from Anne’s head and replaced it with
another crown.102 Normally when the Agnus Dei began, the queen pros-
trated herself before the high altar for a second time. Hall noted only
that she knelt before the altar to receive the holy sacrament. After mass
ended, she went to St. Edward’s shrine, perhaps by way of the high altar
46  R.M. WARNICKE

as usual, and gave an offering there. She next retired “to a little place…
on the one side of the choir.” She did not exchange her clothes there, as
did Katherine of Aragon, or her crown, as did both her predecessors.
In the hall, Anne, like Elizabeth, sat at the middle table with the
archbishop to her right. Anne de Vere, dowager countess of Oxford,
was one of two ladies who held a cloth before her as she ate. Unlike at
Elizabeth’s dinner, between the archbishop and the countess stood the
earl of Oxford, with a white staff. The servers delivered three courses,
one course more than at Elizabeth’s feast. Before the third course, the
Garter king of arms cried “Largess” for the queen. On the right side of
the hall, out of the cloister of St. Stephen, was a little closet in which
the king with two ambassadors, rather than relatives, stood to watch the
feasting.103 Only the high steward and the marshal rode about the hall.
The crowds acted in a more orderly fashion than they had at Elizabeth’s
feast because Hall described them as “cheering” the participants. After
the third course, those dining had wafers and ipocras and washed, after
which they rose and stood in their places. When the queen had con-
sumed her wafers and ipocras, she washed and then walked into the
middle of the hall, where a nobleman brought a void of spice. The lord
mayor of London provided her with a refreshment in a cup of gold, from
which she drank and then returned the cup to him as a gift to thank him
for his and his brethren’s troubles. Then she departed to her chamber.
Most of the changes at Anne’s feast were probably meant to heighten
the seriousness of the ceremony and to legitimize the hereditary position
of her and her unborn child.104 This process had begun in earnest with
the pageants in the procession from the Tower to Westminster Hall, in
which she was saluted as the “virga Jesse.” For the triumphant queen,
who had been consort-in-waiting for almost 6 years, the unprecedented
command for all to rise and stand in their place as she ate and washed
represented their personal acceptance of her as their king’s consort.
The ceremonies had the overall effect, in association with convoca-
tion and parliamentary actions, of validating Henry VIII’s supremacy
over the English church and his kingdom as an empire, as expressed
in the Act in Restraint of Appeals. They also embodied a salute to his
European allies and the London citizens. Nowhere was the king’s reli-
gious dominance more expressly stated than by the deliberate decision
to have the archbishop place on her head St. Edward’s crown, the sec-
ond most sacred ornament of the regalia after his chalice at Westminster
Abbey. This event honored Anne, of course, by utilizing a king’s crown,
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  47

but it also demonstrated Henry’s power over the English church when
he instructed the abbot to alter the usage of the traditional regalia, going
back to the twelfth century, which the monks had otherwise jealously
controlled. Henry’s imperial stance was also reiterated by the unprec-
edented appearance at a queen’s coronation of squires representing
the duchies of Normandy and Aquitaine, territories once controlled by
the king’s predecessors. The participation of the French and Venetian
ambassadors in the London procession and at the feast identified them
as his allies and showed their support for his queen. Like Elizabeth
and Katherine, Anne possessed European allies. He also honored the
London citizens, who, with his officials’ help, presented a magnificent
display of pageantry during her procession through their city. They
had, in fact, only about a fortnight to design and produce these events.
Consequently, the aldermen, for the first time, as well as the mayor,
marched in the procession to the abbey and enjoyed the feast. Finally, to
honor London’s citizens, Anne returned the cup of gold to the mayor as
a gift to the city after she had drunk from it at the end of the feast.105
The next day, Henry invited the major and aldermen to watch the
jousts at the tilt before the king’s gate. Hall claimed that very few spears
were broken because the horses would not go near the tilt. This seems
to be the only extant discussion of the activities following the corona-
tion, which apparently were not as impressive as those held after the
shared coronation in 1509, except that the chronicler also pointed out
that the king met with the mayor and his “brethren” at Westminster on
Wednesday to thank them again for their contributions.106
On June 9, just days after Anne’s coronation, Sir Edward Baynton,
her vice chamberlain, wrote to her brother, George, Lord Rochford,
who was away in France, about the reaction of the queen’s ladies to
that event. This letter has been cited as evidence for associating Anne
and her attendants with courtly love. Baynton actually wrote, “As for
pastime in the Queen’s chamber was never more. If any of you that be
now departed have any ladies that they thought favored you, and some-
what would mourn at parting of their servants, I can no whit perceive
the same by their dancing and pastime they do use here.” This letter
indicates the rejoicing of the queen’s ladies, who did not mourn because
they had been left behind. Lord Rochford was, of course, a married
man, and the queen was then 6 months pregnant. While admitting they
were dancing, the vice chamberlain did not claim that the queen was a
participant or that the ladies’ partners were men; women often danced
48  R.M. WARNICKE

with other women at celebrations, as they did after Elizabeth’s corona-

tion. Another, more sensible interpretation of Baynton’s letter is that he
meant to assure Rochford that his sister’s coronation had been such a
great success that her ladies were still celebrating a week later.107
Finally, to summarize, these three coronations differed somewhat,
even the individual ones of Elizabeth and Anne. Elizabeth’s followed
basically the traditional ritual, but the river entry to London offered a
new public recognition of queenship. The tournaments that usually
accompanied coronations were postponed, if not called off. The main
theme of her coronation seems to have been the celebration of the end
of the civil wars, as Henry had recently won the Battle of Stoke. In con-
trast, Anne’s coronation in almost every way appeared far more elabo-
rate then Elizabeth’s. It validated her unborn child as the legitimate royal
successor, reveled in the kingdom’s imperial stance and Henry’s victory
over the English church, recognized their foreign allies, and rewarded
the citizens who produced the pageants.
Katherine’s coronation no doubt pleased her, but it was a shared cor-
onation. From the less valuable London gift to the clothing to the rit-
ual itself, hers was less impressive than those for the consorts only. The
anointing for queens in shared rituals omitted the use of the chrism, and
before she returned to the stage on which the king sat, she did obei-
sance to him. That her coronation took place immediately after his
also reminded witnesses that the king’s ritual was more impressive and
lengthier than the queen’s. Besides the four swords and the pair of spurs
featured in his ceremony, Henry also wore some of the clothing said
to have belonged to St. Edward as well as his crown. Even the date of
the coronation, the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, seems
to have focused on Henry, symbolizing him in a way as the coming of
Christ.108
Because of political circumstances, the arrangements by which the
first two Tudor kings chose their wives deviated from those usually fol-
lowed by late medieval and early modern European rulers. Normally
they wed foreign-born ladies, but both Henry VII and his son found
that repercussions from the English civil war and from international reli-
gious disputes meant that only two of their seven queens were members
of foreign dynasties. Furthermore, partly for those same reasons, the
ritual of the three queens who enjoyed coronations differed. Elizabeth’s
somewhat unruly coronation had occurred at a time of political dis-
sension caused by the struggle for the crown, while Anne’s took place
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  49

amid national and international controversies over Henry’s attack on the

church and on papal authority. Finally, Katherine’s shared coronation
with her husband, despite her heritage as a king’s daughter, emphasized
her dependent royal status more than those of her predecessors.

Notes
1. Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood, The King’s Mother: Lady
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 63.
2. W. Mark Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2012), p. 122.
3. Joanna Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship
1445–1503 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 57, specu-
lated that he meant “to strengthen the loyalty of the Lancastrians”
but does not believe it was a “major motivating factor.” See also A.J.
Pollard, “Elizabeth Woodville and her Historians,” Traditions and
Transformations in Late Medieval England, ed. Douglas Biggs, Sharon
Michalove, and A. Compton Reeves (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 145–158.
For a defense of the marriage, see Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs,
“A Most Benevolent Queen: Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s Reputation,
Her Piety and Her Books,” The Ricardian, The Journal of the Richard
III Society, X(1995), 214–145.
4. Lucia Diaz Pascual, “Jaquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of Bedford and
Lady Rivers (c.1416–1472),” The Ricardian: The Journal of the Richard
III Society, XXI(2011), 67–91.
5. Michael Jones, “Edward IV and the Beaufort Family: Conciliation in
Early Yorkist Politics,” The Ricardian: Journal of the Richard III Society,
VI(1983), 258–265.
6. Pascual, “Jaquetta,” p. 81; David Baldwin, Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of
the Princes in the Tower (Thrupp: Sutton Publishing, 2002), p. 1.
7. Fiona Downie, “Queenship in Late Medieval Scotland,” Scottish
Kingship, 1306–1542: Essays in Honour of Norman MacDougall, ed.
Michael Brown and Roland Tanner (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2008),
p. 233.
8. Arlene Okerlund, Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen (Stroud:
Tempus, 2005), pp. 31–32, 38, noted Burgundy’s importance but blamed
Edward’s decision on his need to control events, on his admiration for
Elizabeth, and perhaps the warmth of her large number of s­ iblings.
9. Pascual, “Jaquetta,” p. 70; E. Carlton Williams, My Lord of Bedford:
Being a Life of John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford, Brother of Henry
V and Regent of France (London: Longman, 1963), pp. 223–224.
 50  R.M. WARNICKE

Jaquetta’s uncle, Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne,

arranged for them to meet and married them.
10. J.R. Lander, Crown and Nobility, 1450–1509 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 1970), pp. 112–113, 243 argued that Edward had a
“precarious position,” and “was ready to rely on almost anyone who was
prepared to serve him.” He was not “blindly enamored” and was seek-
ing an “Anglo-Burgundian alliance.” Nicholas Pronay and John Cox,
eds., Crowland Chronicle Continuation, 1459–1486 (London: Sutton
for the Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1986), p. 191, agree with
him about the diplomatic issues. See also, Sutton and Visser-Fuchs,
“Elizabeth Woodville’s Reputation,” pp. 214–245.
11. Laynesmith, Medieval Queens, pp. 45, 58.
12. Sir Anthony Weldon, A Catt May Look at a King; A brief Chronicle and
Character of the Kings pf England from William the Conqueror to the
reign of Charles I (Liverpool: J. Davies, 1816), p. 19.
13. John Mayor, ed., The English Works of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester,
Early English Text Society, vol. 27 (London: Early English Text
Society, 1876), p. 306; Jones and Underwood, King’s Mother. pp. 63.
69, 86, 161. The Latin word, Regina, can also mean princess, a title
even given to some noblewomen, such as Anne Seymour, duchess of
Somerset. See Retha M. Warnicke, Wicked Women of Tudor England:
Queens, Aristocrats, and Commoners (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2012), p. 99. Moreover, in Anon., O Jhesu Endles Swetnes of Louying
Soules (Westminster: William Caxton, 1491) STC, 20195, which Caxon
printed at their “commandments;” he referred to them as “Elizabeth…
Queen of England” and “most noble princess Margaret Mother
unto our…King.” (Image 22, at the end of the book). Finally, Lady
Richmond began her will “We Margaret, Countess of Richmond and
Derby” but also said several times “we the said Princess.” John Nichols,
ed., A Collection of the Wills Now Known to be Extant of the Kings and
Queens of England, Princes and Princesses of Wales and Every Branch
of the Royal Family from the Reign of William the Conqueror to that of
Henry VII Exclusive (London: J. Nichols, 1780), pp. 356, 370.
14. For a list of her as countess of Richmond following some duchesses, see
Francis Grose and Thomas Astle, eds. The Antiquarian Repertory, 4
vols. new edition (London: Edward Jeffery, 1807), I, 55.
15. C.A.J. Armstrong, “The Inauguration Ceremonies of the Yorkist Kings
and their Title to the Throne,” Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society, fourth series, 30(1948), 52; Joanna Laynesmith, “The King’s
Mother,” History Today, 56–63(2006), 38–44, argued that Cecily pro-
vided a model for Margaret’s behavior. For more discussion about her
status at court, see Chap. 6.
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  51

16. Janet Backhouse, “Illuminated Manuscripts Associated with Henry

VII and Members of his Immediate Family,” The Reign of Henry VII,
Proceedings of the 1993 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Benjamin Thompson
(Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1995), p. 181.
17. Sean Cunningham, Henry VII (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 48–49;
Jones and Underwood, King’s Mother, p. 69; John Gough Nichols, ed.,
London Pageants (London: J.G. Nichols and son, 183l), p. 24. Nichols
added that Elizabeth’s had all the customary pomp.
18. Crowland Chronicle, p. 175.
19. Sydney Anglo, “The Foundation of the Tudor Dynasty: The Coronation
and Marriage of Henry VII, “Guildhall Miscellany, 2(1960), 10. The
papal legate, James, bishop of Imola, provided the dispensation that was
confirmed by Innocent VIII in March.
20. Crowland Chronicle, p. 191.
21. Arlene Okerlund, Elizabeth of York (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2009), pp. 49–52. For André, see James Gairdner, ed., Historia Regis
Henrici Septimi (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and
Roberts, 1858), pp. 38–52.
22. William Wilkie, The Cardinal Protectors of England: Rome and the Tudors
Before the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974),
pp. 13–14; Isabel Thornley, “The Destruction of Sanctuary, Tudor
Studies, presented by the Board of Studies in History in the University
of London to Albert Frederick Pollard, Being the Work of Twelve of his
Colleagues and Pupils, ed. R.W. Seton Watson (Freeport: Bookes for
Libraries Press Reprint, 1969), pp. 182–207.
23. T.N.A. E 404/79, fo. 98(also numbered 375); see also William
Campbell, ed., Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII from
Original Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office, 2 vols. (New
York: Kraus Reprint, 1965), I, 227–228.
24. Cunningham, Henry, p. 42.
25. Crowland Chronicle, p. 191.
26. Cunningham, Henry, pp. 52–53.
27. T.N.A. E 404/79, fo. 98 (also numbered 375); see Campbell, Materials,
II, 84, for preparations in 1486.
28. Samuel Bentley, ed., Excerpta Historia or Illustrations of English History
(London: Samuel Bentley, 1831), p. 86.
29. Denys Hays, trans., The Anglia Historia of Polydore Vergil, A.D.
1485–1537, Royal Historical Society, vol. 74 (London: Office of the
Royal Historical Society, 1950), p. 7.
30. Francis Bacon, The Historie of the Reigne of King Henrie the Seaventh
(London: W. Stanley, 1622), p. 8.
31. William Camden, Annales: The Historie of the Most Renowned and
Victorious Princess Elizabeth, Late Queen of England., trans. Robert
 52  R.M. WARNICKE

Norton, second edition, (London: Thomas Harper for Benjamin Fisher,

1635), sig. D1-3. See also, Retha M. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of
Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989).
32. Edward Herbert of Cherbury. The Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth
(London: E.G. for Thomas Whitaker, 1649), pp. 52, 122, 257–259.
33. Muriel St. Clare Byrne, ed., The Lisle Letters, 6 vols. (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1981), III, no. 583a, p. 133; IV, no. 863.
34. For a historiographical view of Anne’s life, see Warnicke, Wicked Women,
pp. 15–26.
35. Journal, 5 de May, MS de Brienne, quoted by John Lingard, The History
of England, 10 vols. (Dublin: Duffy,1878), IV, 237.
36. BL Add. MS. 6,113, f. 70; for the date, see Edward Hall, Henry VIII,
ed. Charles Whibley, 2 vols. (London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904), II, 222;
for prohibitions, see J. Charles Cox, The Parish Registers of England
(Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield Reprint, 1974), pp. 81–82.
37. Another interpretation is that it forbade a man from seducing or raping
his brother’s wife, not his widow.
38. N.B. Harte, “State Control of Dress and Social Change in Pre-Industrial
England,” Trade, Government and Economy in Pre-Industrial England:
Essays Presented to F.J. Fisher, ed. D.C. Coleman and A.H. John
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976), pp. 142–143.
39. An examination of T.N.A. E 101 42 l/13, f. 3v. confirms the published
list that no first names were given.
40. Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the
Tudors, from A.D. 1485 to 1559, ed. William Hamilton, new series, vols.
XI and XX (New York, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1965), XI, 43; Herbert,
Henry VIII, p. 381, said she attended the queen.
41. Scottish Record Office. Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers
Relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain Preserved
in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere, ed. G.A Bergenroth, P. De
Gayangos, G. Mattingly, M.A.S. Hume, and R. Taylor, 13 vols., 2 sup-
plements, (London: Longman, 1862–1954), XI, 64 (hereafter CSP
Span).
42. For examples, Barrett Beer, “Jane [née Jane Seymour] (1508/9)
queen of England, third consort of Henry VIII,” Oxford Dictionary
of National Biography (hereafter ODNB), www.dnboxforddictionary.
com (accessed 5/27/2013). Antonia Weir, The Six Wives of Henry VIII
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1992), p. 235.
43. Byrne, Lisle Letters, IV, no. 895. Lady Lisle included Katherine Basset in
the negotiations because some of her contacts at court were concerned
that Anne might be too young.
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  53

44. William Seymour, Ordeal by Ambition: An English Famiy in the Shadow

of the Tudors (London: Sedgwick & Jackson, 1972), speculated that
she “perhaps” joined Katherine’s household in 1529; Simon Adams,
“Radcliffe, Mary (c.1550–1617/18) courtier,” ODNB, www.dnbox-
forddictionary.com (accessed May 27, 2013). See also, Scottish Record
Office, Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry
VIII, ed. J.S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R.H. Brodie, 21 vols. in 35 and
Addenda (London: HMSO, 1862–1932), V, 340, 696 (Hereafter LP)
45. CSP Span, V-ii, 13, 21, 43.
46. Thomas Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England, 3 vols. (London:
J.G.W. L. and W.G., 1662), III, 146.
47. Luke McMahon, “Ughtred, Sir Anthony (d. 1534), soldier,” ODNB,
www.dnboxforddictionary.com (accessed 6/13/2013); J.D. Alsop,
“Smith, Sir Clement (d. 1552), administrator,” ODNB, www.dnbox-
forddictionary.com (accessed 6/13/2013).
48. Henry Clifford, The Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria, trans. Canon
E.E. Estcourt, ed Joseph Stephenson (London Burns & Oates, 1887),
pp. 40–42; LP, V, 1548.
49. LP, X, 901.
50. LP, X, 915, 1147; LP Addenda, 1262.
51. Warnicke, Wicked Women, pp. 45–76.
52. LP, I, 94 (42), XV, 613(12), 686. See also LP, VII, 419 for a similar gift
to Anne Boleyn in 1534.
53. LP, XVIII–I, 740.
54. T.N.A. SP 1/177, fs. 123-25v; David Starkey, Six Wives: The Queens
of Henry VIII (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), pp. 814–815, note
51; Susan James, Katheryn Parr: The Making of a Queen (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1999), p. 90.
55. James, Katheryn, p. 404.
56. Keith Dockray, “Neville, John, third Lord Latimer [1493–1543],
nobleman,” ODNB www.dnboxforddictionary.com (accessed May
24, 2013 l); James, Katheryn, p. 140, claimed that a poem about Sir
Nicholas Throckmorton, written in Elizabeth’s reign, accurately stated
that Katherine personally interceded with the king for Nicholas’s father,
Sir George, who challenged the Reformation statutes in 1536 and was
in trouble with the crown again in 1537. Since her husband, Lord
Latimer, came under royal suspicion in 1536 for the role he played in
the Pilgrimage of Grace, it is not likely that she left for London to inter-
cede with the king for Sir George when her own husband was in trou-
ble. The poem has many errors. See Stanford Lehmberg, Throckmorton,
Sir Nicholas (1515/16–1571), diplomat and member of parliament,”
ODNB, www.dnboxforddictionary.com (accessed August 23, 2016).
 54  R.M. WARNICKE

57. LP, XVIII-i, 854, 873.

58. Lucy Wooding, Henry VIII (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 49, 50.
59. CSP Span, II, 17.
60. Mayer, Works of Fisher, p. 306; CSP Span, II, 18, states that each crown
was worth 4s. 2d.
61. Wooding, Henry VIII, p. 49.
62. LP, I, 6.
63. Hall, Henry VIII, I, 4.
64. Ibid., I, 5.
65. Retha M. Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne of Cleves: Royal Protocol at the
Tudor England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
66. Society of Antiquaries,“Articles Ordained by King Henry VII for
the Regulation of his Household,” A Collection of Ordinances and
Regulations for the Government of the Royal Household, Made in Divers
Reigns from King Edward III to King William and Queen Mary: Also
Receipts for Ancient Cookery (London: Published for the Society of
Antiquaries by John Nichols, 1790), p. 121. Kay Staniland, “Royal
Entry into the World,” England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of
the 1986 Harlaxton Society, ed. Daniel Williams (Woodbridge: Boydell
Press, 1987), p. 299, related that the “Articles” have been incorrectly
misdated as 1494 and that Margaret Tudor, countess of Richmond, did
not write them. For more information about them, see Chap. 6.
67. Percy Schramm, A History of the English Coronation, tr. LG. Wickkham
Legg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937), p. 2.
68. For rituals, see Jennifer Loach, “The Function of Ceremonial in the
Reign of Henry VIII,” Past and Present, 142(1994), 43–68.
69. Ian Archer, “City and Court Connections: the Material Dimensions of
Royal Ceremonial, ca. 1480–1625,” Huntington Library Quarterly,
71(2008), 157–179.
70. John Carmi Parsons, “‘Never Was a Body Buried in England
with Such Solemnity and Honour,’ The Burials and Posthumous
Commemorations of English Queens to 1500,” Queens and Queenship
in Medieval Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at King’s College
London, April, 1995, ed. Anne Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press,
1997), p. 325; Joanna Laynesmith, “Fertility Rite or Authority Ritual?
The Queen’s Coronation in England, 1445–1487,” Social Attitudes
and Political Structures in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Tim Thornton,
(Thrupp: Sutton, 2000), p. 53.
71. T.C. Banks, An Historical Account of the Ancient and Modern Forms,
Pageantry, and Ceremony of the Coronations of Kings of England
(London: for the Author, 1820), p. 48.
72. “Articles,” pp. 123–124.
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  55

73. Roy Strong, Coronations: A History of Kingship and the British Monarchy

(New York: HarperCollins, 2005), pp. 49, 94.
74. Tessa Rose, The Coronation Ceremony of the Kings and Queens of
England and the Crown Jewels (London: HMSO, 1992), pp. 13–14.
75. Claude Blair, The Crown Jewels: The History of the Coronation Regalia in the
Jewel House of the Tower of London, 2 vols. (London: HMSO, 1998), I, 154.
76. A.H. Thomas and I.D. Thornley, eds., Great Chronicle of London
(London: George Jones, 1938), p. 438.
77. This description is largely taken from John Leland,. Joannis Lelandi
antiquarii de rebus Britannicis collectanea, ed. Thomas Hearne, 6 vols.
(London: William and John Richardson, 1770), IV, 216–223; see also
John Ives, ed., Select Papers Chiefly Relating to English Antiquities,
Published from the Originals in the Possession of John Ives (London:
M. Hingeston, 1773), pp. 120–152.
78. R. Malcolm Smuts, “Public Ceremony and Royal Charisma: The English
Royal Entry in London, 1485–1642,” The First Modern Society: Essays
on English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone, ed. A.L. Beir, David
Cannadine, and James Rosenheim (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989), p. 71.
79. “Articles,” pp. 123–124, has directions for the procession that differs
from that which occurred.
80. L.G. Wickham Legg, ed. English Coronation Records (London:
Archibald Constable and Co., 1901), pp. 100–112; for a discussion of
the texts, see also Laynesmith, Medieval Queens, p. 98.
81. Blair, Crown Jewels, I, 299.
82. Rose, Coronation Ceremony, pp. 39–41, based on inventories and other
documents, states the scepter was of silver gilt; see also Blair, Crown
Jewels, I, 303–304; Leland. Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, IV, 223, neither
identifies the metal nor states that the scepter also had a dove.
83. Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, IV, 224, does not specify the
exchanging of either crowns or clothing, but Henry’s was based
on Richard III’s and included a shared coronation with the queen;
Elizabeth’s crowning, of course, took place later. Called “Little Device
of the Coronation of Henry VII,” which was actually drawn up for
Richard III. It can be found in Legg, English Coronation Records, pp.
219–239. It includes not only the exchange of crowns but also that
of clothing. The “Little Device” is also printed in William Jerdan,
ed.,“Device for the Coronation of King Henry VII,” Rutland Papers
(London: Camden Society, 1842), XXI, 1–24.
84. Blair, Crown Jewels, I. 295.
85. Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, IV, 224, does not specify chrism but
the Liber Regalis instructed that at joint coronations the archbishop
 56  R.M. WARNICKE

only anointed the king with the chrism but in a queen’s sole coronation,
the chrism was to be used.
86. Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, IV. 224; “Articles,” pp. 123–124,
also indicated that she was to be anointed on the back.
87. Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, IV, 228–229; earlier tournaments for
Henry’s own coronation were postponed. See Anglo, “Tudor Dynasty,”
p. 10. For the imprest, see W.R. Streitberger, Court Revels, 1485–1559
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), p. 239.
88. Reginald Sharpe, London and the Kingdom: A Study Derived Mainly
from the Archives at Guildhall, 3 vols. (London: Longmans, Green &
co., 1894), I, 344.
89. Ibid., p. 389.
90. BL. Cotton Tiberius E viii, fn. 90. See also LP, I, 81–82. For Henry
VIII’s coronation, see Alice Hunt, The Drama of Coronation: Medieval
Ceremony in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008), pp. 12–39.
91. Hall, Henry VIII, I, 4–7.
92. Blair, Crown Jewels, I, 304–306.
93. Ibid., I, 149–150 l. Loach, “Function of Ceremonial,” 43–68.
94. Hall, Henry VIII, I, 8–10.
95. Ibid., I, 10–13.
96. Ibid., I, 13.
97. Peter Herman, “Edward Hall (1497–1547), lawyer and chronicler,”
ODNB. www.dnboxforddictionary.com (accessed June 3, 2016),
98. LP, VI, 584; Hall, Henry VIII, II, 229–32.
99. Hall, Henry VIII, II, 232–236, for the procession to the hall. See
also Gordon Kipling, “‘He That Saw It Would Not Believe It:’ Anne
Boleyn’s Royal Entry into London,” Civic Ritual and Drama, ed.
Alexandra Johnston and Wim Húsken (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997), pp.
39–79.
100. For the speeches, see “Leland’s and Udall’s Verses Before the
Coronation of Queen Anne Boleyn,” Ballads from Manuscripts ed.
Frederick J. Furnivall, 2 vols. (London: Ballad Society, 1868–1873), I,
364–412.
101. Hunt, Drama, p. 59; Richard Osburg, “Humanist Allusions and
Medieval Themes: The ‘Receyving of Queen Anne, London, 1533,”
Medievalism in the Modern World: Essays in Honor of Leslie J. Workman,
ed. Richard Utz and Tom Shippey (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998),
pp. 27–41.
102. Blair, Crown Jewels, II, 283, 306.
103. Ibid., II, 241. The banquet is on pp. 239–242.
104. For the role of ceremony, see Hunt, Drama of Coronation, pp. 39–52.
 2  MARRIAGES AND CORONATIONS  57

105. For another example of using a queen’s coronation for international pur-

poses, see Laura Gathagan, “The Trappings of Power: The Coronation
of Mathilda of Flanders,” Haskins Society Journal, 13(2000 for 1999),
21–39.
106. Hall, Henry VIII, II, 243. For correction of Hall’s statement that
the horses were not able to cope, see Janette Dillon, Performance
and Spectacle in Hall’s Chronicle (London: The Society for Theatre
Research, 2002), p. 260.
107. LP, VII, 613; Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: ‘The Most
Happy’ (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), pp. 183, 349. He also
seemed to think that the celebration was inappropriate because the
king’s sister, the French Queen, died on June 24. The letter was written,
however, on June 9, more than two weeks earlier. See Warnicke, Wicked
Women, p. 66, for Anne of Cleves’ court visit.
108. The vision of the king as a Christ-figure was still an on-going idea across
Europe in the sixteenth century. See David Potter, A History of France,
1460–1560 (London: Macmillan, 1995), p. 31.
 CHAPTER 3

Income and Expenditures

Courts existed wherever monarchs set up residence, whether at a

­splendid palace or a small hunting lodge.1 Although traditionally they
functioned and operated similarly to noble households, royal courts by
the Tudor period had grown extremely complex. Because over time rul-
ers had consistently increased the number of officials and servants in
their employment, their establishments had grown much more costly to
maintain than those of their wealthiest subjects. Before 1509 the yearly
expenditures for the royal household amounted to about £13,000, in the
1530s about £25,000, and in the 1540s over £45,000. By contrast, the
annual revenue of one of the greatest magnates, Edward Stafford, duke
of Buckingham, who died in 1521, amounted to only £5000 annually.2
Before turning to the consorts’ households, their councils, their male
staff, female attendants, and their finances, this chapter briefly describes
the court, which, besides providing the kings’ domestic requirements,
was also a source of governmental power. With advice from their coun-
cils, which met at a room set aside for them at court, rulers conducted
internal public affairs and directed foreign policy. In short, their courts
embodied centers of power, patronage, and influence, reflecting their
superior status in England and their membership among the ruling
dynasties of Europe.
The number of royal houses and palaces possessed by Henry VII
and Henry VIII signals a major difference between their reigns. Henry
VII built Richmond Palace to replace Sheen Palace, much of which
was destroyed by fire in 1497, and continued to utilize his palaces at

© The Author(s) 2017 59

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_3
60  R.M. WARNICKE

Westminster and Eltham as well as the Tower of London and Windsor

Castle. He also rebuilt Greenwich Palace in 1500–1501, which fol-
lowed a plan devised by his consort, Elizabeth, probably indicating that
its Burgundian influences reflected her own personal tastes.3 Although
his son failed to restore Westminster Palace after a fire damaged it in
1512, he acquired and constructed many others. Not only did he order
more homes built than did his father, including, among others, St. James
Palace and Nonsuch, but he also succeeded in acquiring two palaces for-
merly owned by Thomas, Cardinal Wolsey: Hampton Court Palace and
York Place, the latter first renamed Westminster and later Whitehall.
While still married to Katherine of Aragon in 1529, the year of Wolsey’s
downfall, Henry seized York Place, which at that time lacked a built-in
queen’s side that enabled him to spend time there with Anne Boleyn. At
his death, Henry possessed over 60 royal houses, the most of any English
monarch ever.4
Early in Henry VII’s reign, the court contained three divisions the
great chamber headed by a lord chamberlain, the hall and service areas
supervised by a lord steward, and the stables managed by a master of
the horse. With a staff of over 300, the lord chamberlain had respon-
sibility for the public rooms, the guard chamber (sometimes called the
great or watching chamber), the presence chamber in which stood the
ruler’s canopied throne, and his private rooms. He ushered visitors to the
monarch, arranged progresses and supervised the work of the masters of
the revels, tents, and ceremonies, and of the surveyor of works. Related
to his department but not under his control were the jewel house and
the chapel royal. Assisted by a staff of some 300 in 27 service depart-
ments, including the cellar, pantry, kitchen, and larder, the lord stew-
ard meanwhile oversaw the distribution of food to the communal tables
in the hall twice a day at 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM for all those author-
ized to eat at the crown’s expense. Some also gained bouche of court
for food (mostly breakfast) for themselves and their servants. In 1540,
Sir Thomas Cromwell’s reforms abolished the office of lord steward and
placed the king’s household under the control of a great master. He
supervised four masters of the households, two for the king’s side and
two for the queen’s side.5 In the stables, the master of the horse, assisted
by an avener, yeomen, and other employees, directed the acquisition,
feeding, and welfare of the horses required for the monarch’s hunting
and recreation, as well as for his necessary transportation from one desti-
nation to another. When a full court moved overland, comprising some
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  61

1500 people by Henry VIII’s reign, it obviously needed more horses

than the court reduced to some 800 or so that accompanied the mon-
arch on the usual summer progresses from August to October. During
these progresses the king spent much time hunting; however, they also
had political ramifications, for by displaying the “ritualized splendor” of
his court to his subjects, he emphasized and “reinforced his authority” as
monarch.6
Usually the king and his family traveled to and from their Thames
palaces by barge. The queen possessed her own barge, which could be
drafted for crown business, as when, for example, in 1528 Brian Tuke,
treasurer of the king’s chamber, paid Richard Molle, master of Katherine
of Aragon’s barge, 17s. 10d. for conveying by water to Bridewell the
papal legate, Lorenzo, Cardinal Campeggio, who had arrived, ironi-
cally to inquire about Henry’s attempts to end his marriage to her.
It could also serve as transport for others of the royal family, as in 1541
for Princess Elizabeth.7
Seeking to spend quality time in the company of only those servants
who attended to their personal needs, early medieval kings had begun
building private rooms between their great chamber and their privy. In
the mid-1490s, Henry VII decided to create a new department, called
the privy chamber, headed by the groom of the stool, who supervised a
small staff of grooms and pages. In 1518, his son, perhaps adopting the
practice of Francis I, added gentlemen to the privy chamber, which by
1526 numbered one nobleman, the groom of the stool, who also served
as keeper of the privy purse, five other gentlemen, two gentlemen ushers,
four grooms, the king’s barber, and a page. Only individuals with royal
authorization could enter the privy chamber and the lodgings behind it,
the bedchamber, and the privy galleries, including the library and clos-
ets. Secluded in the privy chamber, the monarch ate privately the meals
served to him by these gentlemen and ushers.8 Late in Henry VIII’s
reign, he opened the privy chamber up to some who were not strictly
its members and permitted official ceremonies to occur there. These
changes reduced the privy chamber to a mere antechamber to the bed-
chamber and the other private rooms.9
To a certain extent, the rooms on the queen’s side of the court
reflected those on the king’s side; although the arrangements did change
somewhat from palace to palace, the basic separate distinctions remained.
Lists of the queens’ male and female staff, indicating their offices, have
survived in varying degrees of detail. Those for Katherine of Aragon’s can
62  R.M. WARNICKE

be found within a recounting of the individuals who attended her shared

coronation with Henry and in a document developed in 1516; the partial
list for Anne Boleyn survives in a document concerning New Year’s gifts
in 1534 but does not indicate specific offices; Jane Seymour’s household
comes from her funeral record; Anne of Cleves left documents concern-
ing wages for her household; an undated list for Katherine Howard was
at first mistakenly associated with Anne of Cleves; and several household
lists have survived for Katherine Parr.10 Additional names and positions
can be found in other records, such as Elizabeth of York’s privy purse
expenditures, which identifies her gentlewomen and some of her male
officials. The coronation document, which is more detailed than the later
documents, describes Katherine of Aragon’s household; her council, the
membership and responsibilities of which will be discussed below; and
her male staff in the private rooms and in her service departments, such
as the pantry and cellar. It next lists her ladies and ends with the stable-
men. In all, the male servants numbered about 120 in 1509. Anne of
Cleves’s wages vary from one quarter to the next, making it difficult to
come up with a definitive number, but her list of servants would probably
be equal to those of her successors. In contrast, Katherine Howard’s doc-
ument begins with her council’s membership, then turns to her ladies and
to various male officials and servants of the chamber, and ends with her
stable officials. As it lacks references to the service officers, it names only
some 107 officials. Finally, Katherine Parr’s list, as indicated by Dakota
Hamilton, identifies 51 men in the upper household but does not iden-
tify the men in the service departments.11
Despite this scattered, somewhat incomplete evidence, some conti-
nuity of the consorts’ staff and officials can be ascertained. A few com-
parisons of the members will be made to suggest that continuity, but to
list all the known servants of the seven queens would overwhelm this
chapter with too much detail. Although 6 years and 4 months elapsed
between the death of Elizabeth of York and the beginning of Katherine
of Aragon’s tenure as queen, a few of the male staff can still be found in
both households. One of the most important officers, the lord chamber-
lain, was Thomas Butler, earl of Ormond, who attended both queens, as
did Richard Decons or Decouns, the keeper of the privy seal and secre-
tary, and William Heydon or Haydon, the clerk of their council. Some
12 other men are known to have held other offices in both queens’
households. If a more complete listing had survived of Elizabeth’s
­servants, perhaps additional duplication could be found.12
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  63

Despite the animosities caused by the dissolution of Henry VIII’s

first marriage, more continuity existed than one might have expected
between the households of Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. They
shared Griffith Richards, Katherine’s clerk of the signet but Anne’s
receiver general; Sir Robert Dymmok, their chancellor, the most impor-
tant member of the council13; and three lesser officials: the same cook
and a yeoman, named John Kyng, who might have retained his posi-
tion with Anne Boleyn because he was also a yeoman of Henry’s guard.
Since John Kyng was a common name, and as this name appears on a list
dated in 1509 for Katherine of Aragon, it is possible he was not the same
John Kyng who served Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard as a yeo-
man. The third lesser official, John Skut, the tailor, worked for all Henry
VIII’s wives, but he did not limit his employment to the royal family.
He also sewed clothing for other clients, such as Henry Percy, fifth earl
of Northumberland, and Honor Plantagenet, Viscountess Lisle. Indeed,
this diversity of employment may be true for several of the queens’
other servants. Lady Lisle also purchased a frontlet from Anne Boleyn’s
embroiderer. Returning to Anne’s other officials, three who held posi-
tions outside her household as keepers, stewards, or bailiffs of her join-
ture property had been previously employed in Katherine’s household:
William Blount, Lord Mountjoy, one of the king’s councillors, succeeded
Ormond as Katherine’s lord chamberlain in 1512; Christopher Bulkeley
acted as Katherine’s solicitor and Sir Thomas Tyrrel as her master of the
horse.14
In 1536, on the day of Anne’s execution, John Husee informed
Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle and lord deputy of Calais, that the
crown had released most of her servants for other employment.15 Of the
men, her vice chamberlain, Sir Edward Baynton, her master of the horse,
Sir William Coffin, and her receiver general, George Taylot, also served
her successor, Jane.16 Baynton later functioned as vice chamberlain for
Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and Katherine Parr until his death
in 1544. John Smyth, Anne Boleyn’s surveyor, also gained employ-
ment with all her successors until his death in 1545. This was obviously
a part-time position since he simultaneously functioned as Lord Lisle’s
auditor. Anne’s immediate successor, Jane, had a lord chamberlain,
Thomas Manners, earl of Rutland, who continued with Anne of Cleves
and Katherine Howard; and Jane’s general receiver, Wymond Carew, also
attended Anne of Cleves and Katherine Parr. Sir William Paget held the
position of secretary for both Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard.
64  R.M. WARNICKE

Finally, Jane’s avener served Katherine Howard, and two of Jane’s

­yeomen of the wardrobe of beds also held office with Henry’s last two
queens.17
Although Anne of Cleves’s queenship was brief, some of her staff
continued at court. Her chancellor, Sir Thomas Dennis, served in that
position for Katherine Howard, and her receiver, Sir Thomas Arundell,
functioned as chancellor for Katherine Parr. One of Anne’s pages also
attended Katherine Howard. Since Rutland’s illness in late 1542 forced
him to surrender his position as warden general of the Scottish marches,
he could not resume his royal service when Katherine Parr became
queen.18 Instead, her uncle, William, Lord Parr of Horton, acted as
her lord chamberlain, who had the assistance of her vice chamberlain,
Sir Edmund Walsingham, the lieutenant of the Tower and successor of
Baynton in 1544.19 At least five more of her officials had first served
Katherine Howard.
The queens possessed wardrobes that were located at Baynard’s
Castle, a property included in all the Tudor jointures. Their wardrobes
had separated from the kings’ wardrobe in the fifteenth century to pro-
vide clothing and other furnishings for them and their households. In
1535, Sir Thomas Cromwell listed in his remembrances that he expected
to receive a piece of cloth of tissue for Scotland’s Queen Mary of Guise
from the yeoman of Anne Boleyn’s wardrobe, but it is not clear whether
this was a gift from her or from the king himself.20
The consorts also possessed privy kitchens with accompanying pan-
tries and larders, usually located on the floor below their lodgings. The
Tudor kings had not invented the concept of the privy kitchen, which lay
separate from the great kitchen where the staff daily prepared the com-
munal meals. A privy kitchen appears in the records as far back as 1245.
It is also true that the Tudor monarchs greatly increased the number of
privy kitchens, constructing separate ones for themselves and separate
ones also for their consorts. As strict rules guided the great kitchen staff
that prepared the hall’s communal meals, which the king and queen had
ceased attending, the cooks and their attendants could not deviate from
their daily schedule to prepare separate, smaller meals at times more con-
venient for the royal family. The privy kitchens, which resulted in more
flexibility in the timing of food preparation, probably led to better qual-
ity of food, as it was cooked on a more limited scale, and it also offered
less opportunity for deliberate poisoning. The “Ordinances for Henry
VIII’s Household” in 1526 even stipulated that the king’s and queen’s
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  65

cooks should prepare good meats and dress them well, and that the
gentleman ushers should keep daily records of the bread, ale, and wine
­consumed.21
In the king’s absence, his queen’s household remained intact and
independent, enabling her to schedule activities of interest to her, such
as visiting relatives. In addition, as noted, the queens possessed Baynard’s
Castle, their official London residence, which the kings rarely visited.
The consorts also held other houses in the London area: Katherine Parr,
for example, owned Chelsea, Hanworth, and Ditton, the latter two of
which Anne Boleyn had earlier possessed.22 Despite access to private resi-
dences and living in separate lodgings at the palaces, the queens’ officials
were not entirely distinct from the monarchs’; a fluidity existed for sev-
eral reasons. The kings often referred to their relatives’ officials as their
servants. In 1486, a grant on the Patent Rolls noted that Henry VII
had provided an annuity for his “servant, Nicholas Gaynesford, esquire,
usher of the chamber of the king’s consort,” and in 1490, he offered
an annuity to his “servant, Richard Howell, marshal of the household of
Arthur.” In 1515, when Henry VIII named Mountjoy as the governor of
Tournai, the king identified him as his councilor and the lord chamber-
lain of Katherine of Aragon.23
Furthermore, many of the chamber appointees worked three-month
shifts, thereby increasing the number of those who held royal office
without adding to costs. These part-time positions gave them the flex-
ibility to seek other offices. In 1503, Henry VII appointed his “servant
Thomas Holden, yeoman of the chamber” of his queen, as keeper of the
royal household at Westminster Palace. Even those without this flexibil-
ity could amass several positions. Wymond Carew, for example, began
his career as a receiver general for Henry VIII’s duchy of Cornwall; he
kept this position and hired a deputy to do the work while serving as
receiver general to both Anne of Cleves and Katherine Parr and also
holding the position of treasurer of first fruits and tenths.24 An indi-
vidual could utilize his office in the queen’s household to gain advance-
ment to the king’s. For example, Sir Roger Cotton began his career as
master of the horse to Elizabeth of York, ultimately becoming a knight
for the king’s body, and in 1546, Laurence Lee, a gentleman usher of
Katherine Parr, won appointment as one of his sergeants at arms.25 Some
men could attend both the queen and the king in similar capacities. In
1546, for example, Anthony Bourchier served as auditor for Henry VIII
and Katherine Parr.26 In January 1545, Henry even sent his last queen’s
66  R.M. WARNICKE

secretary, Sir Walter Buckler, together with Christopher Mont, a German

native often referred to as Mount, as ambassadors to the Protestant lords
in Central Europe. Buckler’s diplomatic duties kept him away from his
position as Katherine’s secretary until his recall in November.27
The queen’s most important male officials belonged to her c­ouncil.
Its membership as listed in Katherine Howard’s household account
included the following: the lord chamberlain, the chancellor, who held
her great seal, a master of the horse, secretary, receiver general, sur-
veyor, auditor, attorney, and solicitor. This list seems to have overlooked
some members since a later document indicated that her council con-
tained a clerk. In 1503 Elizabeth of York and in 1526–1527 Katherine
of Aragon also employed a clerk of the council. In addition, Elizabeth
appointed her own attorney and gained assistance from one of the king’s
sergeants-at-law, and Katherine of Aragon retained on the council two of
the king’s attorneys, her sergeant-at-law, four apprentices-at-law, and her
attorney in the common bench. Anne Boleyn, like Elizabeth, employed
a keeper of the council chamber. Besides six learned men of the coun-
cil, Anne also sought advice from an attorney in the common pleas and
two attorneys in the exchequer.28 A listing of Katherine Parr’s council
includes a clerk, Sir Robert Tyrwhitt.29
At least by the thirteenth century, the council had emerged because of
the need for officials to administer the queen’s dower or jointure lands,
which in the fifteenth century lay largely in the duchy of Lancaster and
which formed the greatest charge on the crown revenue, traditionally
about £4500.30 The income from her lands paid for the cost of run-
ning her household. Although her chancellor answered to the king’s
exchequer, her council as a whole administered “a wide range of busi-
ness” subject only to her approval.31 The council sent out writs and mes-
sages in the name of the queen, who operated as a femme sole or as the
statute confirming her jointure explained, “Woman Sole,” authorizing
her to transact business in her own name and to sue and plead in the
royal courts.32 This independent status relieved the king or his coun-
cil of having to oversee transactions concerning her dower or jointure
estates and permitting them to avoid legal complications concerning her
debts. The queen’s council met frequently in a chamber at Westminster
next to the exchequer that contained her books and documents concern-
ing the dower or jointure estates that lay scattered all over England and
Wales. Her council also paid parliamentary taxes, such as the subsidy
assessment on her property, like that of other English landowners,33 and
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  67

was called on to settle her debts. In June 1545, Stephen Vaughan, the
crown’s chief financial agent in the Low Countries, corresponded with
Paget, then one of the king’s two secretaries of state and a privy coun-
cillor, asking his assistance in obtaining the money that Katherine Parr
owed him for the work of his wife, a silk woman, who died in September
1544. Vaughan requested Paget to seek aid from Carew, the queen’s
receiver general, but his pleas for help continued. In his last surviving
letter to Paget about this matter in January 1546, Vaughan admitted the
queen’s council had abated some of funds due him, but he complained,
“Yet still I remain unpaid.” Whether he received the full amount remains
unknown.34
The king appointed the members of his consort’s council, which tra-
dition has somewhat erroneously claimed had the same membership as
the council of the duchy of Lancaster, although with the stipulation that
the queens’ accounts remained separate from those of the duchy. Many
members of the consorts’ councils and household are identifiable, but
the number of them also serving in the duchy’s council appears small. At
one time or another, a few members of the duchy’s council also served
three of the queens. In 1505, after Elizabeth of York’s death, Sir Richard
Empson held the chancellor’s position, the most important of the duchy,
but from 1485 he also served as the duchy’s attorney general. He did
not sit on Elizabeth’s council but did act as a justice of eyre for her for-
ests. By 1499, Sir Thomas Lovell, Henry VII’s and Elizabeth’s treasurer
of the chamber, gained appointment as apprentice-at-law for the duchy.
It is likely that the clerk of the duchy’s council, William Heydon, was
hers and Katherine of Aragon’s clerk of their councils.35 On Katherine’s
council also sat John Baker, who became an apprentice-at-law for the
duchy in 1526 and who later in 1535, during the queenship of Anne
Boleyn, served as the duchy’s attorney general. Finally, Paget, who held
the position of secretary for Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard,
gained the chancellorship of the duchy in 1547, after Henry VIII’s
death. Of the central offices, Elizabeth of York’s officials and the duchy’s
shared more membership than did those of her successors.36 Many mem-
bers of their councils and households also held positions as stewards,
constables, and escheators of the various manors, honors, castles, forests,
and other properties managed by the duchy’s council.
Probably the queens met with and addressed their councils soon after
their royal marriages, although the evidence for this procedure survives
only for Anne Boleyn’s queenship in an account written by her chaplain,
68  R.M. WARNICKE

William Latimer, during her daughter Elizabeth I’s reign. He recalled

that after her coronation, Anne summoned her council and other offi-
cials before her and proclaimed that she should thank God “for that it
had pleased him” to give her this “high and royal estate.” She wanted,
she said, to have her court “beautified with the godly garnishments of
virtue.” Then she said, “As I have attained unto this high place next
unto my sovereign, so I might in all godliness goodness duly admin-
ister the same.” She charged the council with supervising the work of
her servants and “inferior officers,” who should be admonished to fear
God and attend church. If some servants failed to perform their duties
diligently, her council should correct them, but all who remained obsti-
nate and failed to improve should be expelled from her household. She
expected her council to mete out “equity and justice” to all, especially
the “poor suitors.”37
In enforcing her dower or jointure rights, the primary duties of the
consort’s council included overseeing the collection of her income,
administering the needs of the estates, and handling disputes between
her tenants as well as between her tenants and local officials. One seri-
ous offense with which the councilors dealt was deer poaching on her
lands. Anne Crawford has determined that in its judicial capacity, the
council developed the procedures of a court of equity that were not for-
malized into an official court until the reign of James I.38 Although gen-
erally queens depended on councils to oversee their estates, they could
intervene personally. Katherine Parr, for example, sent a message to her
officials, reporting her concerns about the “waste and destruction in her
forests,” especially at Gillingham, and ordered them to report their find-
ings to her and her council.39
Receivers for the lands supervised by the council brought into
the queen’s coffers £4500 during Elizabeth Woodville’s queenship.
In March 1486, continuing his policy of reversing many of Richard
III’s decisions and actions, Henry VII returned to his mother-in-law
Elizabeth all the estates, manors, fee farms, parks, castles, and other
property and rights that Richard had seized from her.40 Meanwhile,
Henry provided the monetary needs of his wife. In his second Parliament
in late 1487, a preamble to an act of resumption explained that the king
had been so preoccupied with defending the church, his own person,
and his realm that he and his council had failed to appoint the finan-
cial officers necessary to keep his estates in good order.41 To settle crown
finances, Henry needed parliamentary support, but he had already
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  69

attended to his consort’s well-being. During Easter term 1487, he had

ordered the payment to his queen of all “profits and issues of all lands,
honors, and castles, lately belonging to Elizabeth, late wife of Edward
the Fourth.” In addition, he continued for his wife an annuity that he
had given her in February 1487 and settled smaller grants of land on her
that were enrolled as parliamentary statutes in 1488 and 1489.42 After
her death in February 1503, Richard Decons noted in her privy purse
accounts that he had collected £3,535, 19 shillings, 10 1/2 pence. Since
the financial year had begun at Michaelmas (September 29) in 1502, as it
did every year, this sum was not inconsequential.43
By contrast, Henry VIII granted jointures to his queens that
Parliament ratified until 1540, when a statute authorized him to settle
lands on his consorts and his children by letters patent without requir-
ing parliamentary confirmation.44 Unlike the dower, the jointure, which
had emerged in the thirteenth century, did not need to equal one-third
the value of the husband’s estates. Increasingly, because the dower could
only be attached to estates in which the husband was seised, since the
property held in use was exempted, the jointure eventually replaced it.
The jointure required a husband’s settling certain estates jointly on him-
self and his wife during their lifetimes and on the survivor alone after the
death of one spouse, with provisions for the transmission of the prop-
erty to their heirs after the death of both spouses. By law, the jointure,
which provided a wife with income for her household, had to be ratified
and approved before the marriage was completed.45 Since the king had
access to parliamentary action, he could obtain legislative approval to
deviate from these requirements. In the statute granting Anne Boleyn’s
jointure, for example, the language stated: “The said several letters pat-
ent made by our said Sovereign Lord since the marriage … shall be as
good, and effectual in the law to all intents and purposes as if they had
been made to the said Queen afore the said marriage.”46 The Statute of
Uses of 1536 also prevented a wife from possessing both a jointure and a
dower, but the language of royal documents sometimes used both words
to describe the lands granted to the queen.47
The jointure revenue varied somewhat.48 At first Henry granted
Katherine of Aragon lands, fees, honors, castles, parks, and other hold-
ings with an annual value of £4,129, 2s. 4d. Later he increased this
amount to £4751, 15s. 2d. Anne Boleyn’s jointure during her first
year as queen amounted to £4,423, 3s. 1 3/4d., from English reve-
nues. In addition, she retained £633, 13s. 10d., of her Welsh income.
70  R.M. WARNICKE

Jane Seymour’s revenue had a value of £4623 1s. 11 3/4d. Even though
the Anglo–Cleves marriage treaty promised Anne an income of 5000
marks (about £3330), her jointure assignments amounted to about 4644
marks.49 Henry probably limited her financial support because he had
waived her dowry; if the marriage had not been troubled from the onset,
he might have increased her income. It was important to his social stand-
ing and to the image of the crown in the wider European community
that his wife should have the revenue necessary to live like a queen.50
He may have foreseen this financial development, for he waited until
1541 before beginning to lease some of Jane’s lands that he had not
included in Anne of Cleves’s jointure; for reasons unknown, he decided
not to place them in Katherine Howard’s jointure either. Between 1541
and 1545, he made 15 grants of property formerly held by Jane, most
of which had belonged to the duchy of Lancaster but one had formerly
belonged to John, Lord Hussey.51
Finally, totals for Katherine Howard’s and Katherine Parr’s assigned
lands are not precise, perhaps because they no longer had to be reported
for parliamentary action. A comparison of their estates to those of their
predecessors is difficult because the amounts of the individual properties
are often not indicated. In actual numbers of estates and fees, their join-
tures seem as substantial as those of the queens who preceded Anne of
Cleves. Moreover, while it is true that the estates of Katherine of Aragon,
which were basically those of Elizabeth of York, belonged to the duchy
of Lancaster, some of the property of Henry VIII’s other wives derived
from new sources, as he took the opportunity of attainders and monas-
tic dissolutions to provide them with parcels of that newly acquired
property. Besides the duchy lands, which seem to have been the same
as those granted to his first wife, he continued Anne Boleyn’s control of
the estates assigned to her in Wales when he ennobled her as the mar-
chioness of Pembroke, as well as two manors she had gained before that
ennoblement. Jane Seymour’s jointure included possessions of former
monastic lands in Essex, Surrey, and Middlesex, as well as those of Lord
Hussey. Rumors spread by people unacquainted with her claimed that
she opposed the dissolution of the monasteries, and it is true that she
did attempt unsuccessfully to save the Priory of Catesby, about which
the dissolution commissioners had earlier written a favorable report
on May 12, 1536. However, it is also true that the people who knew
her personally, including Thomas Howard, third duke of Norfolk, Sir
Thomas Warley, a servant of Lord Lisle, and even the king, believed that
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  71

she was willing to accept and dispose of possessions of dissolved mon-

asteries.52 Katherine Howard’s assignments contained property once
owned by Henry Courtenay, marquess of Exeter, Margaret Pole, coun-
tess of Salisbury, Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and Hugh, late abbot
of Redyng. Henry continued some but not all the property of these
queens in Katherine Parr’s jointure. In addition, he also granted lands
and manors to her that had belonged to Walter, Lord Hungerford of
Heytesbury. In March 1545, Henry further ordered that all the money
collected by John Smyth, receiver general of Katherine Howard, from
her lands should be paid to Wymond Carew, Katherine Parr’s treasurer
and receiver general.53
The queens’ dower patronage at once seems extensive. Not only did
they possess more than 100 household servants and numerous receivers
of their dower or jointure income, but they also had various appoint-
ments to make for their landed possessions. Distributing this patronage
was one of their and their councils’ most important functions: manors
and honors had to be leased; stewards, constables, escheators, and other
officers had to be selected. In 1531, for example, Katherine of Aragon
granted to her usher of the chamber the offices of keeper and bailiff of
her manor and park of Stonden, Hertfordshire. Although she did assign
appointments in her name, the king ultimately could decide whether to
permit her to make them. In July 1528, for example, shortly after the
death of his groom of the stole, Sir William Compton, who held numer-
ous royal offices and estates, Henry sent Wolsey a message that he should
permit Katherine of Aragon to bestow the possessions that Compton had
held of her except for the keepership of Odyam Park, which he wanted
for one of his servants. Dakota Hamilton also noted that in 1545 and
1547 some of Katherine Parr’s officials, who had been in her service
before she became queen, gained election to parliamentary seats from
Wiltshire.54
Besides the councils that administered their business affairs and
their male officials and servants, the queens also employed ladies, gen-
tlewomen, and female servants, many of whom were married to male
attendants at court. Actually, the women provided the most distinguish-
ing and visible factor at court, as the kings’ servants, except for an occa-
sional laundress, were entirely male. It is difficult to identify the extent
of continuity among the seven queens’ female attendants since often the
records indicate only their last names. All the consorts had great ladies or
noblewomen who arrived at court to attend them on special occasions
72  R.M. WARNICKE

from time to time. The lists identifying the actual resident women of
Elizabeth of York in 1503 and Katherine of Aragon in 1509 do not dis-
tinguish, except for the maidens and the chamberers, their specific court
positions. In a document of 1519 concerning the queen’s ladies, how-
ever, references can be found to 2 ladies of the privy chamber and 7
ladies and gentlewomen.55 A list dated in 1526 also refers to members of
Katherine of Aragon’s privy chamber. By Katherine Howard’s queenship,
the records identify the women more specifically as ladies of the privy
chamber (four), gentlewomen of the privy chamber (four), ladies and
gentlewomen attendant (nine), maidens of honor (five) and chamberers
(four). This list names only five maidens, but often the queens appointed
six or seven. Dakota Hamilton has determined that in all, 45 women
staffed Katherine Parr’s chamber in 1547, and each of them in turn had
servants.56
Although Katherine of Aragon possessed Spanish attendants and did
not become queen until more than 6 years after Elizabeth of York’s
death, evidence suggests that as many as eight ladies and gentlewomen
of her mother-in-law might also have served Katherine. The above-
cited list for Katherine does not include the names of the maidens, but
other records indicate that Anne Stanhope (future countess of Hertford)
served her in that position.57 However, only one of Anne Boleyn’s
maidens, the future Queen Jane, seems to have also been a maiden of
Katherine of Aragon. Dame Maud Parr and Dame Elizabeth Boleyn, the
mothers of two of Henry VIII’s future queens, as well as Anne Boleyn
(later married name, Shelton), an aunt of the namesake queen, func-
tioned as Katherine of Aragon’s gentlewomen. Sometimes it proved a
disadvantage to employ gentlewomen because they might act as spies.
In 1536, Anne’s attendant, named Margery Horsman, gave evidence
against her mistress but continued on at court to serve Jane; Eleanor
Manners, countess of Rutland, held positions in the privy chambers of
Jane, Anne of Cleves, and Katherine Howard. The latter had the mis-
fortune also to be served in her privy chamber by Jane, Viscountess
Rochford, who played a pivotal role in her fall from grace.58 Both Jane’s
and Anne of Cleves’s privy chamber included Mary Radcliffe, countess of
Sussex. Widowed in 1542, Lady Sussex married Henry Fitzalan, earl of
Arundel, and served in Katherine Parr’s household. Two of Jane’s cham-
berers managed to keep their positions with Anne of Cleves. In addition,
the English-born queens often provided their female relatives and associ-
ates opportunities to serve in their households.59
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  73

Even so, Anne Basset’s mother, Viscountess Lisle, had contacts

at court who aided her in lobbying for her daughter’s appointment as
maiden of honor to Jane. Gifts from her family seem to have played a
role. In May 1537, knowing that Jane was pregnant, Henry commanded
Sir John Russell to request some quail from Lord Lisle, who obliged
with several shipments of them to court. In July, Lisle’s London agent
wrote that the queen, while eating the quail, told Lady Rutland that
she had decided to appoint one of the viscount’s stepdaughters as her
maiden. Anne Basset was subsequently sworn into serve Jane but was
ordered not to wear French apparel, apparently because of that choice of
clothing by Henry’s second queen. In October, Jane died after the birth
of her son, Edward. Undeterred, Lady Lisle won her daughter’s appoint-
ment as maiden to Anne of Cleves when the king decided to name some
thirty English members to her household before she arrived with her
German attendants. Her English maidens included Katherine Howard,
a Mistress Sturton, Anne Basset, Mary Norris, Dorothy Bray, and
Katherine Carey, a daughter of Anne Boleyn’s sister, Mary, and her hus-
band, William Carey. Two of these girls, Anne Basset and Mary Norris,
continued in Katherine Howard’s household. Later, Anne Basset held
a position in Katherine Parr’s household. Furthermore, Jane’s mother
of the maidens, Mrs. Stonor, also served Henry’s last three queens in
that position. It is possible that Mrs. Stonor was the same woman who
attended Anne Boleyn when she was a prisoner at the Tower of London.
Finally, Anne Seymour, countess of Hertford, the sister-in-law of Jane,
served as one of her great ladies, as she did later for Anne of Cleves and
Katherine Parr. It might well be that competitions for appointments
to court offices, such as those of the Lisle family, led the privy council
in October 1540 to send warnings to the king’s vice chamberlain, Sir
Anthony Wingfield, and the queen’s vice chancellor, Baynton, that they
and their fellow officials should stop pestering the king with suits and
send instead petitions in writing to the ordinary council appointed for
such purposes.60
Even when it seemed necessary to replace the women in their cham-
ber, the queens seem to have solicited the kings’ permission. While serv-
ing as regent in England while Henry besieged Boulogne, Katherine
Parr, for example, requested his “pleasure” about her replacement of cer-
tain sick women in her chamber, sending him the names of those whom
she might choose. He approved of her selections and also warned that
74  R.M. WARNICKE

some of the women might be “too weak” to serve her, but they could
“pass the time with her at play.”61
Gentlewomen of their native lands often accompanied foreign-born
queens to their new kingdoms with the expectation of marrying wealthy,
noble husbands. At the funeral of Henry VII, the clerk noted that
Katherine, princess of Wales, had two ladies, Dame Agnes Vanegas and
Dame Maria de Gavara, four gentlewomen, including Maria de Salinas,
and two chamberers, Kateryn de Garvara and Isabel de Venegas.62 Two
of them, Maria de Salinas and Dane Agnes Vanegas, subsequently mar-
ried English noblemen, William, Lord Willoughby de Eresby and Lord
Mountjoy, respectively. By contrast, Henry sent the German attend-
ants of Anne of Cleves back to their homeland a few weeks before he
obtained the annulment of his marriage to her.63
Because the English maidens also gained their positions with the hope
of successful matchmaking, the queens surely became involved in their
betrothal negotiations, but the king’s influence must never be dismissed
even in those affairs. In 1524, for example, Sir Thomas More informed
Wolsey that an unidentified Mr. Broke had promised not to marry with-
out Henry’s advice, as he was intended for one of the queen’s maidens.
Whether the king intervened at the bequest of Katherine of Aragon or
on his own volition is not clear by the letter’s contents. Henry had a per-
sonal interest in his consorts’ maidens since he probably married three of
them, fathered an illegitimate child, Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond
and Somerset, with another, Elizabeth Blount, in 1519, and, as already
noted, appointed English maidens to the household of Anne of Cleves.64
Since except perhaps at high holiday times the only never-married
women at court were the queens’ youthful maidens, special attention
focused on their behavior. William Latimer, Anne Boleyn’s chaplain, also
recalled that after meeting with her council, she summoned the maidens
and her mother of the maids, Mrs. Marshall, “to move them to mod-
esty and chastity,” to charge them to read the English Bible that sat on
a desk in her chamber, and to refrain from reading or writing “wanton”
poetry. Upon discovering that her maiden, Mary Shelton, had written
“idle poems” in her prayer book, the queen “rebuked” her and ordered
Mrs. Marshall to keep “a more vigilant eye to her charge.”65 Anne also
defied Sir Francis Weston in 1536 when he entered her lodgings looking
for Mary Shelton. After Anne’s later arrest for adultery with five men,
including Weston, she related that encounter to Sir William Kingston,
constable of the Tower of London.66
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  75

The presence of young women in their households continued to be a

source of contention for Henry VIII’s queens, who were responsible to
the girls’ parents for their behavior. When Anne Basset gained appoint-
ment as maiden to Jane Seymour, the agent of her mother in London,
John Husee, advised Lady Lisle to “exhort” Anne “to be sober, sad, wise
and discreet and lowly … and to be obedient” to her mistress, and “to
serve God and to be virtuous.” He understood that she knew “the court
is full of pride, envy, indignation and mocking, scorning and derision.” If
Anne Basset misbehaved, it would lead to her ladyship’s own “discom-
fort and discontentation.”67
More evidence has survived about the sexual misbehavior of Elizabeth
I’s gentlewomen, particularly the young maidens, than about the con-
duct of those in the courts of the Tudor consorts, but besides Henry
VIII’s own interaction with his queens’ maidens, other scandals did
occur. In 1510, Sir William Compton visited the chamber of one of
Katherine of Aragon’s gentlewomen, Anne, wife of Sir George Hastings,
future earl of Huntingdon, and sister of Edward Stafford, duke of
Buckingham. Her sister, Elizabeth, Lady Fitzwalter, the first wife of
Robert Radcliffe, Lord Fitzwalter, future earl of Sussex, and a favorite of
the queen, told their brother, Buckingham, and her brother-in-law, Sir
George, about this illicit liaison. Buckingham subsequently confronted
Compton in his sister’s chamber, and her husband later took her away
from court. When the king, who was rumored to have had a love inter-
est in Lady Hastings, learned of this intrusion into his court, he was so
outraged that he rusticated Lady Fitzwalter. Traditionally, historians have
blamed the king’s reaction on the unverified rumors about his feelings
for Lady Hastings. The rumors might or might not have been true, but
the court, the royal home, fundamentally stood firm about hierarchical
procedures. Indeed, after spying on her sister and then deciding to alert
their brother, Lady Fitzwalter should have at least informed the queen
about these rendezvous of her gentlewoman whose behavior she had
the obligation to supervise. Clearly Compton had misbehaved by visit-
ing Lady Hastings’s chamber, since Cardinal Wolsey later cited him for
this adulterous affair. It is also interesting that in his will dated in 1528,
Compton arranged for chantries to be established at Compton Church
to pray for the souls of the king, queen, Lady Hastings, himself, his wife,
and his ancestors.68
Other sexual problems arose among the queen’s attendants. The
king’s niece, Margaret Douglas, daughter of his sister, Margaret, queen
76  R.M. WARNICKE

of Scotland, also violated court protocol. When in 1536 Henry learned

of her secret engagement to Lord Thomas Howard, a son of Agnes,
dowager duchess of Norfolk, the king had them imprisoned in the
Tower of London and later had her placed under house arrest until
1537. Henry seems to have believed that Lord Thomas, who died two
days after her release, wanted to gain the kingship by marrying one of
his royal relatives. Margaret, who then became an attendant of Anne
of Cleves and Katherine Howard, fell in love with the latter queen’s
brother, Charles Howard, and found herself under house arrest again in
1541. In 1543, the same year as Margaret’s release, another scandalous
relationship occurred at court. Mrs. Stonor, mother of Katherine Parr’s
maidens, sent assurances to George Brooke, Lord Cobham, about the
good behavior of his daughter, Lady Elizabeth Brooke, a maiden of
honor. Ironically, in December of that year, the queen’s brother, William
Parr, later earl of Essex and marquess of Northampton, began an affair
with Elizabeth. After his wife deserted him, he had tried but failed to
obtain a formal divorce. Finally, in 1547, Northampton secretly married
Elizabeth and in 1551 obtained a parliamentary statute that annulled his
first marriage and legalized the second one. Queen Mary subsequently
repealed the parliamentary action, but Queen Elizabeth restored his
divorced status.69
Returning to the consorts’ finances, the accounts of Griffith Richards,
receiver general of Katherine of Aragon’s estates, provide abstracts of the
costs of her household for the years 1524 to 1529. Among other recur-
rent items can be found over £600 for repairs of one of her houses, over
£789 for fees and wages of her knights, ladies, maids, and lawyers, over
£97 for rewards to persons bringing presents, over £877 for the ward-
robe of the robes, over £162 for money for her privy purse, over £665
for the stable, and over £424 for presents. The totals spent on the years
involved ranged from about £4100 to £4830.70
Besides the jointures that funded their households, kings granted their
queens other revenue for their expenditures on clothes, jewels, plate
and gifts for their relatives and attendants. Access to magnificent and
expensive clothes, jewels, and plate was essential for consorts and other
members of the royal family and their servants, not only because of their
desire to own them but also because possessing them signaled their high
hierarchical status and the value their husbands and fathers bestowed
on their honor. They also pointed to the richness of the royal treasury.
Indeed, people assessed others by their clothing and spending habits.
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  77

A poorly dressed servant “did more to undermine a lord’s reputation

than … a long list of creditors.”71
Fortunately, Elizabeth of York’s privy purse expenditures, which
offer a personal glimpse of her needs, have survived from March 1502
to February 1503, the month of her death. The expenditures were kept
in monthly segments, with her signature appearing at the end of each
segment. Several topics to which she referred will be delayed for later
discussion; the attention here will mainly focus on household matters
and purchases for herself. Many entries record rewards to acquaintances’
servants who delivered gifts, mostly food, to her: almond butter, oranges
and other fresh fruit, puddings, cakes, cheeses, sweetmeats of candied
fruits, wine, chickens, a crane, a parrot, goshawks, several deer, a wild
boar, and pork chines, among others. The ubiquitous gift exchanges
among royal and gentle classes to which the queen’s accounts attest
played a major role in reinforcing the honor, reputation, and status of
the givers. In a sense, gift giving responded to their social and emotional
needs and established their identities, whether kinship, friendship, or
royal employment. Witnesses to the queen’s acceptance eagerly reported
the way in which she accepted them from her donors. Clearly gifts repre-
sented social bonding, with both donors and recipients obtaining a claim
on the resources and assistance of each other through these exchanges.72
Presumably the individuals who sent these items to the queen
expected that she would appreciate them. Indeed, she must have
accepted the various deer with gratitude, as she required some keepers
of her parks, especially during the summer progress, to send bucks to
her. From Fastern she received by her commandment in September some
venison and six bucks. Sometimes she gave bucks as gifts—for example,
she gave one to the king’s guard and another to the keepers and offic-
ers of her stable. For her diet, she also asked her servants to purchase
eggs, butter, milk, and wine. Near the end of her life, as she was moving
to Baynard’s Castle, they acquired chickens and larks, bread, and ale for
her.73
Many entries relate to her travels. The master of her barge Lewis
Walter, before and after the summer progresses conveyed her, for
example, in October, in her barge with 20 rowers from Richmond to
Westminster and that same day took her ladies and gentlewomen in a
great boat with 10 rowers from Richmond to Westminster. At least
three times, he delivered her to Hampton Court Manor, in March,
April, and again in January, when she was pregnant. Leased by Sir Giles
78  R.M. WARNICKE

Daubeney, the king’s lord chamberlain, his country manor, not yet the
splendid structure Wolsey later built, had become a regular destination
of the royal family during the rebuilding of Sheen as Richmond Palace
and remained a popular country retreat. The entire amount spent on
escorting the queen to royal palaces and this manor on the Thames River
during these last months of her life amounted to £13, 1s. 4d., break-
ing down to about £2 for each occasion. Entries also indicate the need
to keep the barge in good order; they include dressing the bottom with
tallow, outfitting it with new ropes, and decorating it with 272 yards of
coarse material, which was dyed with blue and heraldry red, possibly for
banners. 74
Several entries note the upkeep and repair of Baynard’s Castle and the
purchase of various household furnishing for places unspecified. Security
seems to have been an ongoing concern at the castle, since she ordered
bolts and locks placed on hall doors, a garden door, a stairway door, and
other doors unidentified. In addition, a few entries refer to reparations,
utilizing sand and brick at the castle, as well as the reinforcement of its
windows. For unspecified places, Elizabeth also required the purchase of
various items, such as rolls of wax, materials for a chair, a curtain for a
portable bed, and the making of a bedstead.75
Whether by horse on the summer progresses or by barge the remain-
der of the year, the movements of the queen, her ladies, and gentle-
women around the kingdom required complicated arrangements.
Indeed, the high social status of the traveler meant that her chosen route
had to be planned well in advance, and those appointed to assist her had
to be well prepared for the trip.
As for the queen’s jewels she entrusted them to two grooms of her
chamber, who guarded them on her travels. Obviously their tasks
became more difficult during the summer progresses, when, for exam-
ple, over a six-day period, they moved from Richmond through various
places, including Woodstock, to Langley. For packing her possessions,
her servants obtained a stole (a large packing chest for clothes and other
items), carts, and chariots (a larger cart drawn by strong horses) to haul
her necessities. She occasionally even required guides for her journeys.
Two entries also refer to the need to obtain food for the horse of Agnes
Dean, her laundress. The queen’s summer progresses made it especially
necessary to see to the good management of her stable, and she regularly
granted sums for its upkeep and the care of her horses. Records indi-
cate in addition that the men responsible for the stable obtained tapets
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  79

or clothes for a sumpter horse and hired a man to tame or break in one
of her horses.76
Besides granting extra funds to servants for performing special duties,
such as delivering messages, the queen singled out some of them for
rewards. Among them: William Paston, of the wardship of her beds,
enjoyed a grant from her for his wedding clothes; Nicholas Grey, clerk
of the works at Richmond, obtained funds for his losses when his house
burned down; Nicholas Matthew, yeoman of her chamber, received an
award toward his charges because of an injury to him by a servant of
Sir William Sandes; and when Anne Say, one of her ladies, became ill in
September, the queen paid for the cost of boarding her for six weeks at
Woodstock and later at Abingdon. She supplied several of her attend-
ants with clothing, giving no explanation as to why she favored them. At
various times, the footmen received doublets, linen cloth for shirts, and
other apparel. She paid three women each, probably her gentlewomen,
for one of the following: the hemming of a kirtle, the lining of a gown,
and the mending of two gowns. Finally, she saw to the needs of William,
her fool: she granted William Worthy, his keeper, 2s. per month for his
board, and in July, when he became ill, she provided funds for his diet
and other necessaries. At various times, she purchased items of clothing
for him. Later queens—Anne Boleyn and Katherine Parr, for example—
also provided clothing for male and female fools. Not only members of
the royal family but other important individuals also possessed fools,
including Richard Foxe, lord privy seal and bishop of Winchester. These
fools were sometimes hunchbacks or dwarfs. In addition, they were often
associated with fertility and had deep roots in saturnalian festivities.77
For Elizabeth’s personal needs, as might be expected, she lavished
funds on clothing, jewels, silver, and gold. This chapter will later cover
these topics also for her six daughers-in-law generally, not specifically
just for Elizabeth. Also interesting for insights into her reign are the
entertainments for which she paid and the loans she requested from her
acquaintances. At wages of £3, 6s. 8d., annually, she employed three
minstrels, Richard Denouse, Jayn Marcazin, and Marques Loryden.
Members of the royal family seem to have shared each other’s minstrels
since she rewarded those of the king and her two eldest surviving chil-
dren.78 Evidence of this royal sharing seems to be supported by entries
in the accounts of John Heron, Henry VII’s treasurer of the chamber. In
them are several references to the king’s rewarding the queen’s minstrels
and fiddlers in amounts ranging from 10s. to 40s. He also rewarded the
80  R.M. WARNICKE

minstrels of his daughter-in-law, Katherine of Aragon, and his mother.

Certainly, later in 1535, Anne Boleyn sent for the king’s groom of
the privy chamber, Mark Smeaton, to play on the virginals for her at
Winchester. She also owned a music book that she obtained in France
and that is now at the Royal College of Music in London.79
Returning to evidence of entertainments in Elizabeth’s privy purse
accounts, she paid for the construction of an arbor in the little park at
Windsor Castle so that she could hold an outdoor banquet there, and she
later compensated the king’s painter, John Reynold, for drawings of beasts
and other pleasures at the castle. The only entries referring to her gam-
bling appear in October, which indicate she spent 13s. 4d. twice “playing
at dice.” In addition, she owned greyhounds, for the upkeep of which she
paid 2d. per day. The queens not only possessed greyhounds and hunted
with bows and arrows during the summer progresses but also had lap-
dogs for their amusement. Finally, just a few weeks before her death, she
rewarded a maid from Spain, who danced for her, with 4s. 4d.80
Other evidence in her privy purse expenses concerns her loans.
Between May 1502 and February 1503, the accounts indicate she repaid
ten loans. Seven of them involved relatively small amounts of money,
ranging from 13s. 4d. to 63s. These might have reflected occasions, simi-
lar to the explanation for one 40s. loan, when she asked John Whiting,
gentleman usher of the king’s chamber, while she was present at the
Tower of London, to reward the officers there. The most substantial one
amounted to £206, which was collected for her by a household officer
from various persons to whom he pledged some of her plate. Two of her
other servants loaned her £100 and £13, 10s, 10d. Given the discussion
below about the king’s assisting her in his privy purse accounts with much
larger debts, these loans in her accounts, even the greatest, do not suggest
that she overspent her allowance, at least during the last year of her life.81
In her accounts, Elizabeth also referred to two different christenings,
for which she was probably a godparent. One of them was the child of
Lord Mountjoy and the other of a John Bell. She did not actually attend
the rituals but sent messengers with gifts. In 1537 Jane and in 1544
Katherine Parr sponsored the children of Anne Seymour, countess of
Hertford. Other evidence exists of the sponsorships of Katherine Parr,
probably because at that time she was regent of England; her personal
records are part of the State Papers.82
The document in the National Archives that survives from Anne of
Cleves’s queenship specifies that Wymond Carew, general receiver,
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  81

dispersed funds at her commandment. She signed each folio with “Anne
the Queen.” Basically it refers to rewards and payments from January to
May, and thus has many fewer entries than Elizabeth’s accounts. Like
the first Tudor queen, Anne of Cleves received gifts: a hind, a grey-
hound, a trout, a parrot, sweet water, apples, a leek from a Welshman,
chickens, salmon, and, on May 8, some unspecified animal flesh from
Agnes, dowager duchess of Norfolk. It is not known whether either
Lady Norfolk or the queen was aware that two weeks earlier Henry had
granted Katherine Howard, his future fifth wife and the duchess’s step-
granddaughter, the goods and chattels of two felons.83 Anne of Cleves
also lost money at gambling: 9s. for playing cards, 9s. for playing dice,
and another 37s. 4d. for playing dice, all in April. On May 8 she again
lost 9d. for playing cards. Among other amusements, she rewarded a
tumbler who performed for her. She must also have enjoyed listening to
Prince Edward’s minstrels, whom she rewarded three times; the second
of the three entries, on April 8, noted that the minstrels played before
the “king’s grace danced and your grace.” The ambiguous wording
might have meant that only the king danced. Little information survives
about her household, but she did financially assist two of her servants’
marriages. In April, she granted for the costs of their weddings: £7, 2s.
6d. to a footman and £15 to her maiden, Katherine Carey, daughter of
Anne Boleyn’s sister, Mary, who wed Robert Knollys. Finally, Anne gave
rewards to several persons described as poor.84
Another source of the consorts’ revenue was Queen’s Gold, a tradi-
tional payment of 10% to them, for example, from voluntary licenses for
the alienations of lands or from voluntary pardons for enclosures. In the
thirteenth century, Eleanor of Castile, wife of Edward I, actually col-
lected £4875 worth of Queen’s Gold, an amount larger than her dower,
but over time, more and more resistance to paying these fees developed.
In 1466–1467, Elizabeth Woodville’s revenue from them amounted only
to £37, and it later dwindled to about £7. No exact amounts are avail-
able for the Tudor queens.85
In addition to money sent directly to the queens for their use, the
kings disbursed some income to them through their privy purses,
the records of which exist for Henry VII from 1491 to 1505 and for
Henry VIII from 1529 to 1532. An important issue for Henry VII was
Elizabeth of York’s debts. In 1493, they cost him £1314, 1s. 6d. In sub-
sequent years, he loaned her money for her debts: £100 in 1494, £2000
(“to be repaid,” it was noted) in 1497, and £500 in 1502. In 1495,
82  R.M. WARNICKE

he also paid £66, 13s. 4d., for gold that was delivered to her. Smaller
sums of money went for various items—for example, over £40 for cloth-
ing. One interesting record in 1497 is a payment to her of £10 to cover
the cost of the items she used to adorn his salad or helmet.86
The records of Henry VIII’s privy purse expenditures exist in more
detail than those of Henry VII. The years from 1491 to 1505 cover
only about 130 pages, while the years 1529 to 1532 extend to almost
300 pages. Because of the short period of time covered in Henry VIII’s
reign, the dates will mostly be omitted. Another difference between
the two documents is that Anne Boleyn, the queen-in-waiting, received
many gifts, while the consort at that time, Katherine of Aragon, is almost
missing from these records. A third difference, perhaps because he was
courting Anne, is considerable references relating to entertainment and
sports. Henry spent 45s. 4d. on bows and arrows for her, paid £29 for
the cost of her greyhound’s participation in the killing of a cow, and
delivered £5, 40s., to her for playing cards in two different grants. After
they traveled to Calais in 1532, many references can be found to the
king’s losing money to her playing cards, sometimes only to her but also
often to gentlemen of his privy chamber. At Calais, Henry lost 15s. to
her and then £4, 13s. 4d., to her and Sir Francis Bryan. Back home at
Greenwich that autumn, they continued playing cards, with the king los-
ing various sums of money to her, Bryan, and Sir Francis Weston.87
No debts of hers are mentioned, but he did provide her with a New
Year’s gift of £100 and another gift of £110 and various kinds of cloth
costing about £26. He also granted her £217, 9s. 8d., for items called
“stuff,” and he paid £4d. 18s. to garnish her desk with gold. These
grants are representative of the almost forty that she received from his
privy purse during this period.88 At the same time, since he was attempt-
ing to end his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, only three references
can be found to her. He gave “by way of reward” 40s. to her pages in
December 1529 and 1530. In December 1531, when she was no longer
at court, he paid a reward of 20s. to a servant of hers.89
Other grants provided more revenue and other items to the queens or
members of their household. Sometimes confusion existed about what
source of income should be used. In 1519, for example, the king pro-
vided Lady Margaret Bryan with an annuity of £50 and a tun of Gascon
wine for her services to him and the queen, to be paid by the clerk of the
hanaper, an office in chancery. Subsequently, Wolsey, the lord chancellor,
amended the bill to order it paid from the exchequer instead.90 Other
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  83

amounts could be recorded in the book of payments, where in 1509 it

indicates he granted a sum of £1000 for Katherine of Aragon’s debts,
or in the treasurer of the chamber’s accounts. In 1528, Brian Tuke, its
treasurer, paid the wages of one of the queen’s footmen and an annuity
of £10 to Elizabeth Darrell, one of her maidens.91
Because of the fluidity of the servants of the queens and kings, grants
made to one of her servants cannot automatically be designated as his
willingness to reward that person for service to her, but in some cases,
the records do specify this motive. In 1508, Henry VII granted an annu-
ity of £10 to Joan Stuarde for her service to his late consort. In 1513, his
son granted the keepership of a park in Surrey for life to John Wheeler,
“for services to his Queen.” Earlier, in 1511, Katherine of Aragon had
informed Sir John Cutte that the king had approved a forfeit of £40 be
given to three of her servants and asked that he “for our sake” permit
them to enjoy the forfeit. Sometimes, as in 1514, the record specifies
that the queen requested parcels of land from the king for one of her
gentlewomen.92 Whether in 1535 Anne Boleyn requested the keeper-
ship of the park at Collyweston for her client is not known, but Henry
Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, the king’s illegitimate son, complained to
Cromwell that although he had intended to present to his servant the
keepership at Collyweston, his principal home from 1531 to 1536, the
king had intervened to favor his consort’s wishes. Henry might have
already planned to give the house to Anne, which she obtained in 1536
in exchange for Baynard’s Castle and Durham House to the duke.93
Besides money expended for various items for the queens, the kings
offered them grants of goods. The surviving Great Wardrobe accounts
of Henry VII and Henry VIII identify gifts of clothing and other item
given to them. The entries for Henry VII note that his wardrobe gave
his consort cloth for couches, sheets, and some personal items, such
as kerchiefs, that were worth £13, 5s. 6d. One of her pages received
clothing, a gentlewoman some black satin, and a minstrel a doublet as
rewards. The king awarded two grants to two of her attendants, Lady
Anne Percy, who has been identified as the second daughter of Henry
Percy, fourth earl of Northumberland, and Lady Katherine Gordon, a
Scottish noblewoman, whom the king had sent to his queen’s house-
hold. Lady Katherine was the wife of Perkin Warbeck, the Yorkist pre-
tender imprisoned in the Tower of London. The accounts indicate that
Lady Anne received one grant worth £9, 2s. 7d., and another worth
£11, 3s. 4d., for gowns and other items of clothing. That she gained his
84  R.M. WARNICKE

assistance is noteworthy because her father’s failure to fight on behalf of

Richard at Bosworth Field greatly aided Henry’s victory. Lady Katherine
obtained a grant of gowns and materials worth £15, 9 1/2d. and
another of 51s. 4 1/2d.94
Henry VIII’s earliest grant of clothing to Katherine of Aragon
occurred on January 17, 1510. The Great Wardrobe accounts further
indicate that in December he spent £40, 5s. 2d. on cloth and items for
creating a traverse or curtain that divided one of her rooms, probably
her lying-in chamber. He also gave her some bedding. Other items pro-
vided for her household include clothing for one of her chamberers and
a gentlewoman in 1510 and 1511; a chamberer in 1514; a yeoman of
the chamber in 1514; and four of her chamber in 1516.95
The Great Wardrobe accounts for the rest of Henry VIII’s reign do
not exist, but surviving information does indicate particular gifts to
members of his queen’s household. Twice in 1531 and 1532 and once in
1533, he gave clothing to Anne while she was still Lady Anne Rochford.
During her queenship, records indicate that he gave her clothing in 1534
and 1535. In July 1533, he provided new furnishings for her bed, prob-
ably in preparation for childbirth.96
In addition to clothing and other materials, kings also made avail-
able expensive plate and jewels to their consorts. Henry VII reorgan-
ized his household, separating the keeper or master of the jewels from
the treasurer of the chamber and also appointing a clerk of the jewels.
Ultimately, the master of the jewels became only the titular head of the
jewel house while the real executive was the clerk. As Henry VII’s sur-
plus of savings grew, he began investing large amounts in jewels and
precious stones that advanced the jewel house to a significant financial
status at court. Between 1491 and 1509, he spent £128,441 on jew-
els and in 1495, £4,853 for plate as well as jewels.97 His son appointed
Thomas Cromwell as master, who controlled the office because the clerk
carried out his orders. Henry VIII also provided his wives with jewels
and plate, some of which was retained for their own personal needs, but
some of which, especially the plate, could be used as gifts. In January
1533, shortly before Anne Boleyn’s marriage to Henry, Cromwell deliv-
ered to the future queen various items, such as two gilt pots, a pair of gilt
flagons with the arms of France, twelve gilt spoons, eleven white spoons
with roses at the ends, and a round basin of silver for a chamber. Later,
Hans Holbein the Younger designed a cup for Jane that incorporated
her motto, “Bound to obey and serve.” Signifying their royal status,
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  85

the plate served as an important household possession since occasion-

ally the wives of at least Henry VIII entertained and offered dinner to
the king and even ambassadors in their presence chambers. As the king’s
privy chamber remained mostly his private quarters, when on special
occasions he chose to dine with his queens, he ate with them in their
chamber. In 1533, Henry carefully limited the amount of plate that
Katherine of Aragon could retain, keeping an inventory of what she,
then called the princess dowager of Wales, could use. Despite her royal
demotion, her collection still included six statutes of silver for her private
devotions and several thousand ounces of domestic plate.98
So essential were jewels to the appearance and status of members of
the royal families that they expected artists, such as Hans Holbein, to
depict their prized possessions accurately in their portraits. Indeed,
the artists probably had little difficulty accomplishing these expecta-
tions since, as did Holbein, many of them actually designed jewelry.
A final inventory of Henry VIII’s jewels, completed in 1550, indi-
cates he possessed the most “sumptuous” collection ever owned by an
English monarch.99 One reason he managed to amass this fortune was
that from 1536, he had access to the gold, silver, and gems of the dis-
solved monasteries. The jewels awarded to each of his queens, as was
Katherine of Aragon’s, were returned to the royal coffers when she died
or left office, then remounted (except in the case of Anne of Cleves) for
his next queen.100 This procedure created problems for Edward VI’s
lord protector, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset, because Dowager
Queen Katherine Parr and her new husband, Thomas, Lord Seymour
of Sudeley, tried but failed to convince Somerset that Henry had given
some of the gems to her as personal gifts and that they should not be
restored to the jewel house. Actually, as Dakota Hamilton has discov-
ered, descriptions of the jewels she maintained as dowager queen filled
four sheets of paper; the jewels included over two dozen rings, two
dozen ornate buttons, fifty-three pairs of aglettes, six jeweled girdles, and
various other items.101
Some descriptions of all the queens’ jewelry exist, but those of
Katherine Howard seem especially interesting. In 1540, she received,
among other gifts, a pretty double string of beads of green glass, dec-
orated with gold and red stones; between each stone hung a pearl.
Another, a table of gold, reflected Reformation politics by showing the
bishop of Rome running away. Both of these items are far too intricate
to further describe here.102 On New Year’s Day 1541, Henry presented
 86  R.M. WARNICKE

her with, among others, a square necklace containing sixteen diamonds

and 60 rubies with an edge of pearls. He also gave her a rope containing
two hundred pearls.103
This chapter has investigated how wealthy and influential queens
could affect the financial well-being of the crown and even the economy
of England. The dowries and jointures they received elevated them to
the status of the kingdom’s greatest landowners; they controlled exten-
sive patronage not only in their households but also in the manors and
other property assigned to them. The kings spent thousands of pounds
sterling on rich and splendid clothing, gold, plate, and jewels, not only
for their own use but also for the use of their consorts. These purchases
were viewed as necessary, since the honor of kings in England and in
Christendom depended on their endowing their consorts with enough
fortune so that they could live like queens in splendid apartments, wear-
ing cloth of gold gowns, and adorned with splendid jewels.

Notes
1. Rulers could take a few of their officials with them and leave most of the
court behind, as Henry VIII did in 1540 when he met Anne of Cleves
at Rochester.
2. Frederick Dietz, English Public Finance: 1485–1641 (London: Barnes
and Noble, 1964), p. 89; C.M. Woolgar, The Great Household in Late
Medieval England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 5–6.
3. Simon Thurley, The Royal Palaces of Tudor England: Architecture and
Court Life, 1460–1547 (New Haven: Published for the Paul Mellon
Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 1993), p. 34.
4. Thurley, Royal Palaces, pp. 1, 27, 50–51; Edward Hall, Henry VIII, ed.
Charles Whibley, 2 vols. (London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904), II, 183.
5. Retha M. Warnicke, “The Court,” A Companion to Tudor Britain, ed.
Robert Tittler and Norman Jones (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004),
pp. 63–65; David Loades, The Tudor Court (London: Batsford, 1986),
pp. 41–61.
6. Thurley, Royal Palaces, pp. 70–72; For progresses and the reasons the
Tudor kings went on them, see Neil Samman, “The Progresses of
Henry VIII,” The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, ed.
Diarmaid MacCulloch (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), pp. 59–73.
7. Scottish Record Society. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the
Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J.S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R.H. Brodie,
21 vols. in 35 and Addenda (London: HMSO, 1862–1932). V,
Treasurer of the Chamber’s Accounts, 1528, XVI, 804 (Hereafter, LP).
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  87

8. David Starkey, “Intimacy and Innovation: The Rise of the Privy

Chamber, 1485–1547,” The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to
the Civil War, ed. Starkey (London: Longman, 1987), pp. 71–118.
9. Thurley, Royal Palaces, pp. 137–139.
10. For Katherine of Aragon’s lists, see LP, I, 82, and Historical Manuscripts
Commission, The Manuscripts of his Grace, the Duke of Rutland, G.C.B.
Preserved at Belvoir Castle, 4 vols. (London: HMSO, 1888–1905), I, 21.
Some members are available for Anne Boleyn in T.N.A E101/422/16,
ff. 15v-16 and BL Add. MS. 46,716A, f. 63 v; for Katherine Howard, see
T.N.A SP 1/157, ff. 15, 16; for Katherine Parr, see Dakota Hamilton,
“The Household of Queen Katherine Parr,” unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Somerville College, Oxford University, 1992, pp. 13–17.
11. Nicholas Harris Nicolas, ed., The Privy Purse Expenditures of Elizabeth of
York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth (New York: A Facsimile
edition published by Barnes & Noble, 1972), p. 99.
12. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 1–111; LP, I, 82; Robert Somerville,
The History of the Duchy of Lanceaster, 2 vols. (London: The Chancellor
and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1953), I, 112–113.
13. Dymmok served as chancellor from 1527 to 1535 but was also known
as Katherine’s almoner and receiver and Anne Boleyn’s chamberlain.
A.J. Murson, “Dumoke [Dymmok] family (per c. 1340 to c. 1580),
king’s champion,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter
ODNB) www.oxforddnb.com (accessed March 13, 2015). In 1516, Sir
R. Poyntz functioned as Katherine’s chancellor. See LP, Addenda, 367.
14. LP, II, 41, IV, 3379, VII, 352, 989; LP Addenda, 887. See also James
Carley, “Blount William, fourth Baron Mountjoy (c. 1476–1534), cour-
tier and literary patron,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed June
28, 2008).
15. Muriel St. Clare Byrne, ed., The Lisle Letters, 6 vols. (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1981), III, no. 698.
16. Coffin simultaneously held positions in the king’s household. See
Catharine Davies, “Coffin, Sir William (b. in or before 1492, d. 1538),
courtier,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed March 13, 2015).
17. LP, VII, 543; The staff of Henry VIII’s last four wives can be found
in many references. Here are a few: LP, XV, 18, 21, XVI, 422, XVIII-
2, 231, 530. See also M.M. Morris, “Manners, Thomas, first earl
of Rutland (c. 1497–1543), courtier and soldier,” ODNB www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed July 4, 2014); Sybel Jacks, “Paget, William,
first Baron Paget (1505/6–1563), diplomat and administrator,” ODNB
www.oxforddnb.com (accessed March 13, 2015).
18. Pamela Stanton, “Arundell, Sir Thomas (©. 1502–1552), admin-
istrator and convicted conspirator,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com
 88  R.M. WARNICKE

(accessed March 16, 2009). Morris, “Manners, Thomas, ODNB;”

Byrne, Lisle Letters, VI, no. 1651; LP, XVI, 422.
19. LP, XIX-ii, 798.
20. LP, IX, 218; Susan James, “Parr, William, Baron Parr of Horton (c.
1480–1547), soldier and courtier,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com
(accessed June 6, 2015).
21. Thurley, Royal Palaces, pp. 160–162; see also LP, IV, 4896 (19); Society
of Antiquaries, “Ordinances for the Household Made at Eltham in
the XVIIth Year of King Henry VIII,” A Collection of Ordinances and
Regulations for the Government of the Royal Household, Made in Divers
Reigns from King Edward III to King William and Queen Mary: Also
Receipts for Ancient Cookery (London: Published for the Society of
Antiquaries by John Nichols, 1790), pp. 142, 144.
22. Thurley, Royal Palaces, p. 78.
23. Scottish Record Office, Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public
Record Office, Henry VII, 1485–[1509], 2 vol. Prepared under the super-
intendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (Nendeln, Liechtenstein,
Kraus Reprint, 1970), I, 100, 312 (hereafter CPR); LP, II, 41.
24. CPR, II, 317; P.R.N. Carter, “Carew, Sir Wymond (1498–1549),
administrator,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed July 4, 2014).
25. T.N.A. E 404/79/fo. 98; William Campbell, ed., Materials for a History
of the Reign of Henry VII from Original Documents Preserved in the
Public Record Office, 2 vols (NewYork: Kraus Reprint, 1965), II, 84,
234; LP, XXI-ii, 332(69).
26. LP, XXI–i, 302(54), 646. See also T.N.A. SP1/196, f. 40.
27. LP, XX-i, 89, XX-ii, 736.
28. LP, IV, 6121, f. 51, 6212, VII, 352, XV, 21, XVI, 422; Nicolas,
Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 100–101. For the great seal, see T.N.A. E
101/425/15 under Payments by Warrant of the Queen’s Grace and by
Bill signed by her Grace’s Council.
29. T.N.A E 31/61, f. 97.
30. Somerville, Lancaster, I, 277; Anne Crawford, “The King’s Burden:
the Consequences of Royal Marriage in fifteenth-century England,”
Patronage: The Crown and the Provinces in Later Medieval England,
ed. Ralph Griffiths (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1981),
pp. 40–41.
31. Crawford, “King’s Burden,” p. 47.
32. Great Britain, Statutes of the Realm, 9 vols. (London: Dawsons of Pall
Mall, 1963), III, 25, Henry VIII, c. 25.
33. LP, IV, 2972; for the council, see Dakota Hamilton, “The Learned
Councils of the Tudor Queens Consort,” State, Sovereigns & Society
in Early Modern England: Essays in Honour of A.J. Slavin, ed. Charles
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  89

Carlton with Robert Woods, Mary Robertson, and Joseph Black

(Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1998), pp. 87–102.
34. LP, XX-i, 14, 27, 963; T.N.A. SP 1/213, f. 34(XX1-i, 26). W.C.
Richardson, Stephen Vaughan: Financial Agent of Henry VIII: A Study
of Financial Relations with the Low Countries (Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University, 1953), pp. 20–23, did not clarify the issue of the
queen’s debts.
35. Somerville, Lancaster, I, 412–413.
36. Somerville, Lancaster, I, 392, 406, 408, 412, 435, 452.
37. Maria Dowling, ed., “William Latymer’s Chronickille of Anne Bulleyne,”
Camden Miscellany, XXX, fourth series, vol. 39 (London: Royal
Historical Society, University College, 1990), pp. 48–49.
38. See, for example, LP Addenda, 179, 301, 720, 931, 991, 1545, 1674;
Anne Crawford, “The Queen’s Council in the Middle Ages,” English
Historical Review, 110(2001), 1209. See also, N.R.R, Fisher, “The
Queen’s Courte in her Councill Chamber att Westminster,” English
Historical Review, 108(1993), 317–318.
39. T.N.A. E 101/426/3, f. 22.
40. Campbell, Materials, I, 338, 347.
41. B.P. Wolffe, “Henry VII”’s Land Revenues and Chamber Finance.”
English Historical Review, 79(1964), 225–254.
42. Campbell, Materials, II, 116, 142, 148, 221; Statutes of the Realm, II,
7 Henry VII, c. 13; 12 Henry VII, c. 9.
43. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 107–111.
44. Statutes of the Realm. III, 32 Henry VIII, c. 51.
45. Lloyd Bonfield, Marriage Settlements, 1601–1740: The Adoption of the
Strict Settlement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp.
1–3; Statutes of the Realm, III, 1 Henry VIII, c. 18; 25 Henry VIII, c.
25, c. 28; 27 Henry VIII, c. 51; 28 Henry VIII, c. 38; 28 Henry VIII,
c. 45 contain jointure statements for his first three queens.
46. Statutes of the Realm, III, 25 Henry VIII, c. 25.
47. T.N.A. SP 1/245, f. 11. See also Barbara Harris, “Property, Power
and Personal Relations: Mothers and Sons in Yorkists and Early Tudor
England,” Signs, 15(1990), 609 n. 7 and Harris, English Aristocratic
Women, 1450–1550: Marriage and Family and Careers (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002), pp. 22–23.
48. LP, II, 1363(I), VII, 349, IX, 477, XIV-ii, 286, XV, 20, 21. See also
Statutes of the Realm, III, 1 Henry VIII, c. 18; 25 Henry VIII, c. 25, c.
28; 28 Henry VIII, c. 38; 28 Henry VIII, c. 45.
49. For her jointure see Retha M. Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne of Cleves:
Royal Protocol in Tudor England (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000), p. 153
 90  R.M. WARNICKE

50. Statutes of the Realm, III, 28 Henry VIII, c. 45; LP XVI, 503, XVIII-ii,
231, XIX-i, 141(133).
51. LP, XVI, 878(56), XVIII-i, 100 (25), 226 (3, 15, 52, 94), 346 (23, 35,
41, 43), 476 (7, 24, 74, 82); XX-i, 465 (77).
52. The editors of LP, X, 383, misplaced a letter referring to the queen’s
support for Catesby in March but the commissioners’ May report to
which it referred had not then been written. Mortimer Levine explained
this discrepancy in “The Place of Women in Tudor Government,”
Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G.R. Elton from His American
Friends, ed. Delloyd Guth and John McKenna (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982), pp. 120–121. See also for Jane and the dissolu-
tion, LP, XI, 13, 230, 860, XII-ii, 34.
53. LP, XV, 21, XVI, 503(25), XVIII-ii, 23, XIX-i, 141 (133). LP Addenda,
1494, notes Katherine Howard’s jointure as £3352 19s. 1 1/4d.,
which must have been a preliminary figure. This amount was broken
down among lands granted under the seal of the duchy of Lancaster,
the Great Seal, and that of Augmentations. The amount from Lancaster
appears inadequate at £208 8s. 1 1/4d. The editors inserted a date of
January 14, 1541 on the document probably because the official grants
to Katherine took place on January 14 and 15, 1541. See LP, XVI. 454
(25, 26). It is most unlikely that her jointure was as inadequate as the
one of Anne of Cleves, especially as many contemporaries believed he
doted on his fifth queen; for Katherine Parr, see LP, XX-i, 3(99); T.N.A
E 315/479 (7).
54. LP, IV, 4449; V, 330; Hamilton, “Katherine Parr,” pp. 154–155.
55. LP, III, 491.
56. Ibid.; LP, IV, 1939 (7), XV, 21. Anne of Cleves and Katherine Parr had
seven. See BL Add. MS. 45,716A, f. 16; Hamilton, “Katherine Parr,”
p. 88.
57. T.N.A. SP 10/1, ff. 134–135v.
58. Byrne, Lisle Letters, II, pp. 331–332; LP, I, 474, III, Miscellaneous,
1519, wages from 20 February to 4 March, 491, IV, 882, VI, 1634,
X, 873, 1165, XV, 21. For the evidence against Anne Boleyn, see Retha
M. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the
Court of Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989),
p. 214 and for Katherine Howard, see Warnicke, Wicked Women of
Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, Commoners (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2012), pp. 68–76.
59. LP, III, 491, VI, 636, XV, 21; Pamela Stanton, “Arundell, Mary
[married names Mary Radcliffe, countess of Sussex; Mary Fitzalan;
countess of Arundell] (d. 1557) ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed
March 16, 2009).
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  91

60. Warnicke, Wicked Women, pp. 30, 50, 58–60, 87; Byrne, Lisle Letters,
IV, p. 191; for the list of Anne of Cleves’s maidens, see T.N.A. E
101/422/15 under Easter Wages 1540; For Mrs. Stonor and Anne
Boleyn, see LP, X, 793, 797. For a chart indicating which ladies, gen-
tlewomen, and maidens served between 1537 and 1547, see Hamilton,
“Katherine Parr,” pp. 124–126. For the order about not molesting the
king, see LP, XVI, 127.
61. LP, XIX-ii, 201.
62. LP, I, 20.
63. Warnicke, Marrying of Anne of Cleves, p. 173.
64. LP, IV, 882, V, 1548 also suggests a Mr. Elderton for Mr. Seymour’s
daughter. This could have been Jane Seymour; LP, I, 474, cites the let-
ter of the Spanish ambassador, Luis Peroz, about rumors at court that
Henry VIII was interested in the married sister of Edward Stafford,
duke of Buckingham, named Elizabeth, who was a gentlewoman of
the queen and also the first wife of Robert Radcliffe, future first Earl of
Sussex.
65. Dowling, “Latymer’s Chronickille,” pp. 62–63; T.N.A. E 101 421/13,
f. 3v. for Mrs. Marshall; for the Sheltons, see Francis Blomefield, An
Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, second
edition, 11 vols. (London: W. Miller, 1827), V, 266–268.
66. LP, X, 793. Incredibly, this episode has been cited as evidence of her acting
out a courtly-love scene. See Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn:
‘The Most Happy’ (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 335–336, 340, 346.
67. Byrne, Lisle, IV, no. 887.
68. LP, I, 474, IV, 4442, VI, 923 (1, 10, 12, 13), 924. G.W. Bernard, “The
Rise of Sir William Compton, Early Tudor Courtier,” English Historical
Review, 96(1981), 754–777, claimed that Henry wanted to have sexual
relations with both sisters. Bernard also cited two documents from late
July 1533, which have responses obtained by some royal commission-
ers, including Sir John Daunce, who interrogated the wife of Robert
Amadas, former master of the jewel house. In the first one, they noted
Mrs. Amadas claimed to own a book of prophesies, admitted that
Daunce had arranged for the king and her to have sexual relations at
Compton’s London house, argued that there was no good married
woman in England, except for Katherine of Aragon, Elizabeth, duchess
of Norfolk, and herself, and denounced Anne Boleyn as a harlot. The
second document detailed the questioning by those commissioners of
her husband about the more than £1000 in plate and jewelry that he
owed the king. Obviously, Mrs. Amadas was not a credible witness. The
king actually had used Compton’s London home for a meeting with
his sister, Margaret, queen of Scotland, in 1516. Perhaps, this incident
 92  R.M. WARNICKE

led to rumors about what he was doing there. Later, in “Compton, Sir
William (1482–1528), courtier, ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed
June 7, 2015), Bernard said about the Hastings’ business only that
Wolsey had cited Compton for adultery.
69. Rosalind Marshall, “Douglas, Lady Margaret, Countess of Lennox,
noblewoman,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed June 29, 2015);
T.N.A. SP 1/167, fs. 153, 157–159; Susan James, “William Parr, mar-
quess of Northampton (1513–1571), nobleman and courtier,” ODNB
www.oxforddnb.com (accessed May 18, 2015); LP, XX–ii, 900.
70. LP, IV, 6121.
71. For studies clothing, see, for example, Susan Vincent, Dressing the
Elite: Clothes in Early Modern England (New York: Berg, 2003); Maria
Hayward, Rich Apparel, Clothing, and the Law in Henry VIII’s England
(Farnham, Ashgate, 2009); Maria Hayward and Philip Ward, eds. The
Inventory of King Henry VIII: Volume II, Textile and Dress (London:
Harvey Miller Publishers for The Society of Antiquaries, 2013); Kate
Mertes, The English Noble Household: 1250–1600: Good Governance and
Politic Rule (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), p. 103.
72. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 2, 4, 5, 10, 18, 23, 29–30, 36–37,
43, 45–48, 51–54, 63–64, 74, 81, 85, 87, 89; see also Historical
Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of
Rutland, Fourteenth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical
Manuscripts, Appendix 1 [C. 7476]; [Cd. 2606]) 4 vols. (London:
HMSO, 1888–1905), IV, 265, 269, 272; Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos,
The Culture of Giving: Informal Support and Gift-Exchange in Early
Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008),
pp. 4–5; see also, Felicity Heal, The Power of Gifts: Gift Exchange in
Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); LP
Addenda, 467 for Katherine of Aragon’s “merry” acceptance of a ring
in 1525.
73. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 15, 37–38, 45–46, 48, 78–79, 84.
74. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 7, 15, 60, 80, 94–95, 176; www.hrp.
org.uk/HamptonCourtPalace/HamptonCourtsorigin (accessed May
25, 2015).
75. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 16, 20, 25–26, 51, 56.
76. Ibid., pp. 14, 18, 29–30, 40, 44–47, 53, 59, 62, 64, 79, 93, 97, 104,
262–264; Norbert Ohler, The Medieval Traveller, trans. Caroline Hillier
(Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989), pp. 29–30.
77. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 4–6, 10–11, 13–14, 18, 23, 26, 38,
46, 52, 61, 75, 80–81, 91; LP, X, 913, XXI-I, 645, 1165; T.N.A. E
101/422/15; the last one at court was during the reign of George II.
See E.J. Wood, Giants and Dwarfs (London: Richard Bentley, 1868),
p. 328.
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  93

78. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 2, 41, 44, 78, 86, 91, 100.
79. Sydney Anglo, “The Court Festivals of Henry VII, A Study Based Upon
the Account Books of John Heron, treasurer of the chamber,” Bulletin
of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, 43(1960), 28, 30, 31, 32, 34,
38, 4l. The queen’s minstrels were not disbanded after her death, as the
king continued to reward their playing. For Anne Boleyn, see LP, X,
793 and MS. 1070 at the Royal College of Music, London; Lisa Ann
Urkevich, “Anne Boleyn, A Music Book, and the Northern Renaissance
Courts: Music Manuscript 1070 of the Royal College of Music,
London,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1997. Urkevich
successfully challenged Edward Lowinsky’s claim in “A Music Book for
Anne Boleyn,” Florilegium Historiale: Essays Presented to Wallace K.
Ferguson, eds. J.G. Rowe and W.H. Stockdale (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1971), 160–235, that the manuscript was created espe-
cially for Anne. In 1989, I earlier questioned his characterization of
drawings in it, supposedly made by Mark Smeaton, as representative of
Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. See Warnicke, Anne Boleyn, pp.
248–251.
80. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 31, 33, 36, 52–53, 58, 88–89; LP,
XIX-ii, 688, for example, for Katherine Parr’s greyhounds and crossbow
and T.N.A. E 101/422/15, for Anne of Cleves. See also for lap dogs,
LP, IX, 99, X, 1193.
81. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 8, 12(4), 13, 18, 57, 77, 92.
82. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 28–29; LP, II, 1652, 3487, 3489,
XII-1, 483, 494, XIX-ii, 688.
83. T.N.A. E 101/422/15; LP, XV, 613(12).
84. T.N.A. E 101/422/15; for playing cards, see Laura Smoller, “Playing
Cards and Popular Culture in Sixteenth-Century Nurenberg,” Sixteenth
Century Journal, XVII (1986), 183–214.
85. William Prynne, Aurum Reginae (London: Thomas Ratcliffe, 1668),
pp. 4–7, 120–122; A.R. Myers, Crown, Household and Parliament in
Fifteenth Century England, ed. Cecil Clough (London: Hambledon
Press, 1985), p. 255; Crawford, “King’s Burden,” p. 52; T. F. Tout,
Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England: The
Wardrobe, The Chamber, and The Small Seals, 6 vols. (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1920–1933), V, 263–267. It is possible
that the reference to payment of queen’s silver for lands that an anony-
mous purchaser obtained in 1534 (amount not named) was actually for
queen’s Gold. See LP, VII, 1672.
86. Samuel Bentley, ed., Extracts from the Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry
the Seventh from December 7, 1491 to March 20, 1505 (London: William
Pickering, 1827), pp. 95–97, 111–112.
 94  R.M. WARNICKE

87. Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry the Eighth
from November MDXXIX to December MDXXXII (London: William
Pickering, 1827), pp. 48, 50, 98, 131, 267, 275.
88. Ibid., pp. 4, 13, 72, 97, 101, 123, 130.
89. Ibid., pp. 14, 101, 183.
90. LP, III, 361.
91. LP, II, the King’s Book of Payments, p. 1441, LP, V, Treasurer of the
Chamber Accounts, 1528.
92. CPR, II, 585; LP, I, 683, 1602, 3226.
93. LP, IX, 779; Thurley, Royal Palaces, pp. 78, 81.
94. Maria Hayward, ed. The Great Wardrobe Accounts of Henry VII and
Henry VIII (London: London Record Society, Boydell and Brewer
Press, 2012), pp. 9–10, 18, 28–29, 38–39 45–46, 195, 242. The
accounts are published for Henry VII from 1498–1499 and for Henry
VIII from 1510–1511. In addition, Hayward included particulars of
the accounts of Sir Ralph Sadler in 1543 and 1544. For Warbeck, see
Scottish Record Office, Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers
Relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain Preserved in
the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere, ed. G.A. Bergenroth, P. De
Gayangos, G. Mattingly, M.A.S. Hume, and R. Taylor, 13 vols, 2 sup-
plements (London: Longman, 1862–1954), I, 184; see also Wendy
Moorhen, “Four Weddings and a Conspiracy: The Life, Times and
Loves of Lady Katherine Gordon.” Part I and Part II, The Ricardian:
Journal of the Richard III Society. XII (2002), 394–424 and 446–477.
95. Hayward, Great Wardrobe, pp. 111–112, 223, 240, 251.
96. Ibid., pp. 205, 247, 253–254.
97. Dietz, Government Finance, pp. 78–85.
98. LP, VI, 6, 340, X, 699, XI, 501; Great Britain, Record Commission,
State Papers of Henry VIII, 11 vols. (London: G. Eyre and A. Strahan,
1830–1852), I, 459; CPR, I, 109: W.C. Richardson, Tudor Chamber
Administration, 1485–1547 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University
Press, 1952), pp. 93–95; Philippa Glanville, Silver in Tudor and
Early Stuart England: A Social History and Catalogue of the National
Collection, 1480–1600 (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1990),
pp. 14, 19–20, 24, 31. For Holbein’s cup, see David Starkey, ed., Henry
VIII: A European Court in England (London: Collins & Brown, 1991),
p. 127. See also, David Starkey, ed., The Inventory of King Henry VIII:
Society of Antiquaries MS 129 and British Library MS Harley 1419, 2
vols. (London: Harvey Miller for the Society of Antiquaries of London,
1998), I, 8.
99. Diana Scarisbrick, Tudor and Jacobean Jewelry, (London: Tate, 2995). p. 9.
100. Ibid, pp. 9–12.
 3  INCOME AND EXPENDITURES  95

101. Ibid, p. 12; Dakota Hamilton, “Katherine Parr,” p. 167.

102. Victoria and Albert Museum, Princely Magnificence: Court Jewels of
the Renaissance, 1500–1630, 15th October 1980–1981st February 1981
(London: Debrett’s Peerage, Ltd. In association with the Victoria and
Albert Museum, c. 1980), pp. 34, 39.
103. LP, XVI, 1389.
 CHAPTER 4

Religion and Family Life

This chapter begins with an examination of the cultural intersection of

religion and childbirth, enumerating the reasons that monarchs sought
to establish standards of godliness at their courts. It next identifies and
describes the rituals that accompanied pregnancy and the birth of royal
children, including the establishing of lying-in chambers for the con-
sorts’ deliveries, their infants’ christenings, and their mothers’ purifica-
tions, which made it possible for them to resume their normal lives as
queens. It also examines the death rates for infants and their mothers,
then turns to the queens’ involvement in their children’s and stepchil-
dren’s lives, and identifies the value of their royal status to their relatives,
especially their siblings. Finally, it discusses the grief of Elizabeth of York,
Katherine of Aragon, and their husbands at the loss of their heirs.
The belief that the Christian God wielded the ultimate sword of
justice, rewarding virtue and avenging sins, dominated early modern
culture. Clergymen taught their congregations that God blessed the vir-
tuous with battlefield victories and medical cures. Consequently, many
could easily accept Henry VII’s claim that God had made possible his
defeat of Richard III at Bosworth Field. The kings and their subjects
called on the skills of physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries only to ease
the symptoms of their illnesses, since they believed that God alone healed
sicknesses and cured impotence or barrenness, thus enabling obedient
and deserving Christians to become parents of healthy, normal children.
Like other English kings since at least the twelfth century, Henry VII
and Henry VIII assumed that they served as lieutenants of God on earth

© The Author(s) 2017 97

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_4
98  R.M. WARNICKE

and had the power to heal scrofula, a tubercular infection of the lymph
glands, and to cure epilepsy with the cramp rings that they blessed on
Good Friday.
In setting godly examples for their subjects, monarchs heard mass
some two or three times daily, performed other devotional duties,
including attendance at evensong and honoring religious festivals, gave
alms to the poor, supported the church financially, and attempted to
banish blasphemers and other sinners from their courts. Rulers revealed
the regularity of their religious routines for several reasons. Their per-
sonal commitment to the tenets of Christianity must never be dismissed,
but they did assume that their respect for and obedience to divine laws
would lead God to reward them with a prosperous and thriving realm.
They believed also that their subjects would more readily obey royal
edicts if their rulers appeared to comply with God’s will. People who
attended their local churches regularly might prove less likely to revolt
against governmental authority if they knew of the religious behavior and
Christian rituals at court.1
Personal and public reasons for monarchs to seek God’s favor
included their need to marry devout wives who could successfully give
birth to their heirs. Their subjects viewed their queen as the “handmaid
of God, and the king’s second self, and in his grace, the beauty of a king-
dom” and honored her not only as the “chief of women” but also as
the possessor of the light of the “moon” and thus dimmer than the light
of the “sun,” the king. Finally, they characterized her as the “joy of the
court” and the “comfort of the king” because the “wealth of the king-
dom” lay in the “fruit of her love.”2 Giving birth to a healthy heir to
continue the dynasty ranked first in her responsibilities as God’s hand-
maiden. Religion and childbirth remained deeply interconnected in the
early modern period.
Thus, the monarchs established chapels royal at their courts, which
they attended mostly on ceremonial days. Although the numbers var-
ied, one source indicates twenty-six chaplains and gentlemen clerks, and
eight children with their master had the responsibility for organizing reli-
gious ceremonies and festivals at court. When kings and queens left their
private quarters for religious purposes, they moved in procession to the
chapels royal to make their religious devotions both visible and accessi-
ble to their courtiers, but the ruling family also had daily access to other
chapels. On their separate sides of the court, English kings and queens
maintained rooms, called closets that functioned as private chapels.
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  99

They employed in them individuals titled clerks of the closet, as well as

almoners, confessors, and other chaplains who presided over devotional
services for them at least three times per day: at 8:00 AM, between
9:00 and 10:00 AM, and probably evensong at 4:00 PM. Early in their
reigns, all the Tudor queens might well have summoned their clerics to
a meeting, but evidence for this behavior exists only in William Latimer’s
chronicle about Anne Boleyn. Latimer, formerly one of Anne’s chaplains,
recalled that she admonished her clergymen to warn her if they perceived
her “to decline from the right path of sound and pure doctrine, and yield
to any manner of sensuality.” Believing that she had the responsibility to
set an example for her subjects “of a good life,” she ordered her chap-
lains to monitor “vigilantly” the conduct and behavior of her servants
and officials.3
She also required them to have a special regard for the poor, but not
the vagrants or lazy beggars. If her chaplains discovered deserving poor
in need of assistance, they should bring their cases to the attention of
her and her council. Her almoners, when they were on progress with
the court, had the duty to go into the towns to obtain the names of the
poor and distribute alms to them accordingly. Finally, she commanded
her ladies and maidens of honor to sew shirts, smocks, and sheets for the
poor and required that flannel be made into petticoats for them.4
By comparing Anne’s religious activities to those of other Tudor
queens, both traditional worship and almsgiving gain greater clarity.
Chapter 5 will later turn to an examination of religious reform and criti-
cisms of monastic life. A major difference between Latimer’s recollection
of Anne’s almsgiving, which occurred over her approximately three-
year reign, and the accounts of Elizabeth of York’s privy purse, which
cover almost one year of her queenship, is that the latter gave support to
many pilgrimage sites, such as the Lady of Northampton and the Lady of
Walsingham.5 Even so, her accounts clearly indicate that when she trave-
led on the summer progress with Henry VII in 1502, her servants deliv-
ered alms to the poor in the towns through which they passed. She also
directly supported individuals, including a poor man who had served her
father Edward IV, another poor man who had assisted her uncle, Richard
Woodville, third Earl Rivers, and at least one poor woman.6
As would be expected, because of the length of her reign and her vir-
tuous reputation, references to Katherine of Aragon’s religious contri-
butions are also available. Documents indicate that her receivers offered
alms to the poor, and in 1558, a former supporter of hers, William
100  R.M. WARNICKE

Forrest, who served as a chaplain for her daughter, Queen Mary, pre-
sented her in manuscript form a long metrical account of Katherine’s life,
which he entitled The History of Grisild the Second. Forrest’s publication,
Matthew Hansen discovered, was only one of several in the sixteenth
century to present her as Patient Griselda. In his History, Forrest recalled
that she regularly sent agents into the towns in which she stopped on
her progresses to discover the identity of needy folks so that she could
aid them. Later, Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, com-
plained after her rustication from court in 1531 that the king ordered
his officials to prevent the poor from approaching her for fear she would
attempt to buy their love with her alms. Her daughter’s household
accounts also prove that her almoner followed the practice specifically
of her mother as well as that of Elizabeth of York and Anne Boleyn. In
1522, the eight-year-old princess’s almoner gave funds to the poor when
she traveled between Richmond and Ditton. Like Elizabeth of York,
Katherine of Aragon went on pilgrimages, for example, to the Lady of
Walsingham. She was probably the only wife of Henry VIII to do so,
since Latimer recalled Anne’s opposition to pilgrimages, and of course in
1536 and 1538 Henry did begin to prohibit them, as well as relic vener-
ation and offerings to images. Anne of Cleves’s surviving accounts indi-
cate several offerings of alms to the poor even in her short reign. Finally,
little evidence survives about Katherine Parr’s almsgiving at towns she
passed through on her journeys, but one document indicates that she
provided alms to poor householders in Greenwich at the funeral of her
stepdaughter, Margaret Neville.7
It must be assumed that Jane and Katherine Howard acted similarly,
as they too employed almoners, whose responsibilities involved distrib-
uting money to the poor on behalf of their mistresses. Indeed, Hilda
Johnstone reported that royal and noble almsgiving was “so systematic
that it deserves a prominent place in the history of charitable origins.”
Almsgiving certainly extended beyond the royal family, for Kate Mertes
asserted that in her research on households, she could not find a member
of the aristocracy who failed to give alms or support a chantry.8
All the Tudor queens owned books of devotion, many of which James
Carley reported were described as “little” and thus may have been “gir-
dle books,” which hung from a girdle or belt at the waist and which
seem to have been admired mostly because of their elaborate bindings.
More specifically, the Books of Hours, which were composed of prayers
to be read at designated times, collections of biblical material, and saints’
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  101

lives, proved to be the most popular of these in the late medieval period;
many printers also issued copies of them in the sixteenth century. Not
only Elizabeth of York but also Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr
owned Books of Hours. This seventh Tudor consort is better known,
however, for her possession of the New Testament in English, and espe-
cially for her publications, which will be discussed in Chap. 5. Katherine
Howard also owned the New Testament in English and French as well
as a mass book, and she possessed several volumes in Latin. Having lived
for many years at French-speaking courts, Anne Boleyn purchased books
in French as well as English, among them the New Testament and some
prayers, psalms, and a primer. Little is known about the collections of
Jane Seymour or Anne of Cleves, but the former queen seems to have
possessed a Book of Hours that her successor obtained.9
The celebrations of the annual church festivals at the chapel royal
signaled the court’s devotional routines. For example, the king and
queen offered oblations on Candlemas Day, which honored, accord-
ing to church tradition, the purification of the Virgin Mary some forty
days after the birth of Jesus Christ. In 1497, the king’s Great Wardrobe
provided purple velvet to decorate the tapers of Henry VII’s queen
and his mother, and in 1511, it provided purple velvet to decorate the
tapers of Henry VIII and his queen and crimson velvet for the tapers
of their short-lived infant son, Henry, as well as the king’s sister, Mary
then espoused to Charles, prince of Castile, the future emperor. Court
“Articles” further stipulated that the chamberlain, a baron, or an earl,
walking on the king’s right side, should bear the royal taper; presum-
ably this procedure extended to the queen as well. The carrying of
these lighted candles, which celebrated the purity of the Virgin Mary’s
body, resulted in references to the ritual as the “festival of lights,” mak-
ing it, according to Fiona Kisby, “one of the most distinctive proces-
sions of the liturgical year.” Another well-documented day of special
worship occurred on Palm Sunday which recalled the entry of Jesus into
Jerusalem on the Sunday before Easter. The court moved in proces-
sion to the chapel royal, its members carrying their palms wrapped in
the appropriate colors, purple or crimson velvet, for the royal family. In
1523, the Great Wardrobe also distributed crimson velvet for the palms
of Thomas, Cardinal Wolsey, who joined the procession. Records of the
distribution of velvet for the palms exist mostly for Henry VIII’s reign;
one entry only survives for Henry VII on March 31, 1499, which lacks
reference to his queen.10 It is possible that because Elizabeth of York
102  R.M. WARNICKE

gave birth to their son, Edmund, on February 21, she had not yet been
purified and therefore could not participate in the festival.
The Palm Sunday service in addition to the Thursday maundy feet
washing, which involved entirely different social hierarchies, set the tone
for a godly court honoring the holy days of Easter. On their sides of the
court, kings and queens participated in their personal maundy services
that imitated Christ’s washing of his disciples’ feet at the Last Supper
before his crucifixion and then resurrection on Easter Sunday. The name
of the service, which Edward III initiated for the crown in 1363, derived
from the word maund, a wicker basket that held the alms. Much infor-
mation has survived in the Great Wardrobe accounts concerning the
numerous maundy services that the first two Tudor kings regularly held.
After the foot washing, the almoner doled out money from the maund
to the poor participants, always of the same sex as the royal foot washer.
The number of the poor people in attendance supposedly matched the
age of the king or queen in charge. Therefore, on March 24, 1502, when
at the age of thirty-six Elizabeth of York, born on February 11, 1466,
performed her last maundy, she should have washed the feet of thirty-six
women. Instead, Richard Decons noted in her privy purse accounts that
he delivered 114s. 1d. to her almoner, Richard Payne, for the dispensing
of 3s. 1d. to each of thirty-seven poor women. Thus, this record indi-
cates that the number of the poor present depended on the queen’s age
at her future birthday and not on the last one, perhaps a strategy devel-
oped to make it possible to give more alms.11
The most detailed evidence concerning the Tudor queens’ maundy
survives from Katherine Parr’s reign. Susan James speculated that she
was born in August 1512, but in 1544 her maundy account indicates
that thirty-one poor women participated. These accounts are headed
with the regnal dates 14 July 35 Henry VIII to 21 March 36 Henry
VIII (or from 1543 to 1545). Since April 5 was Easter Sunday in 1545,
the service had to have occurred in 1544, her first opportunity to hold
a royal maundy. In that year, Easter Sunday fell on April 13; thus, she
participated in her maundy on April 10. Obviously a discrepancy exists
between the number of the poor women and the previously accepted
age of the queen. Katherine must have been born after April 10, 1513,
and the number used as the deciding factor was her age at her future
birthday in 1544. This record also details items purchased for the service,
including linen cloth for the women, canvas for the sheets to be used,
and linen cloth for the apron of the queen.12
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  103

The evidence for the other consorts is less detailed or is nonexistent.

In March 1535, Sir William Fitzwilliam informed Sir Thomas Cromwell
that Katherine of Aragon had asked to keep the maundy in her cham-
ber as the king’s grandmother, Lady Richmond, had done. Perhaps,
Katherine referred to the former practice of the late king’s mother
because Lady Richmond had held the status of princess, a similar sta-
tus to that of the ex-queen, who had been demoted to the position of
princess of Wales. Katherine’s strategy may have been a wise one because
Henry decided she could hold her maundy, but only if she presented
herself as the princess dowager of Wales and not as the queen. Earlier, in
1534, Chapuys had complained to Charles V that Henry had prevented
her from holding her maundy, an indication that it had been her nor-
mal annual activity. Timothy Elston has recently pointed out the diffi-
culties independent women had (in the case of Katherine as a divorced
women) in maintaining their legal rights and the support and sympa-
thy of their former subjects. He believed her strategy for obtaining these
goals was to increase her outward piety, which included continuing
to keep the maundy and providing alms for the poor. Henry, wishing
to isolate her from the public, objected to both of those events unless
she relinquished her regal title. Another record provides evidence that
her successor, Anne Boleyn, performed the maundy on the Thursday
before Easter, which fell on April 16, 1536, about two weeks before
her arrest, and still owed £31, 3s. 91/2d., for its supplies.13 In 1540,
when the church celebrated Easter on March 28, Sir Wymond Carew,
Anne of Cleves’ receiver general, noted that twenty-five women received
25d. each at her maundy.14 As September 22, 1515, was her birthday,
clearly the number of poor women represented her future age that year.
No surviving evidence indicates that Jane scheduled a maundy in 1537,
her only opportunity as queen to do so, but as she had much experience
at court, it is likely she recognized the importance of this service. It is
also possible that because she was pregnant, she may have decided not to
perform the ritual. On the other hand, Katherine Howard, whose extant
records do not refer to her maundy, might not have participated in one
in 1541, her only possible year as queen. Witnesses later claimed that her
first secret meeting with Sir Thomas Culpeper, who suffered execution
for adultery with her, occurred while the king held his maundy on April
14. Because of her youth and the shortness of her court residence, she
might not have fully understood this service’s significance. It is also pos-
sible that after Culpeper’s departure, she held her maundy. One would
104  R.M. WARNICKE

expect her almoner, Sir Henry Malet, to have pressed her to do so, but
no evidence of her attention to religious rituals, other than her marriage
and attendance at mass, has survived. The extant accounts of the maundy
lack details about these queens’ specific activities; they washed the wom-
en’s feet only after others had cleansed them at least twice.15
It is necessary to reemphasize the belief of kings that they should sire
male heirs, especially in England, with no record of a queen regnant
since the Norman conquest or even a royal woman vying to become
monarch since the twelfth century. Royal fathers anticipated that their
sons, once reaching their majorities, could preserve the continuation
of the dynasty and prevent rivals, such as Lord Thomas Howard, from
attempting to usurp their kingdom through marriages to royal women,
like Henry VIII’s niece, Lady Margaret Douglas. Unfortunately for their
aspirations, late medieval and early modern people had extremely limited
knowledge about human sexuality and reproduction. Physicians mostly
still accepted Galen’s theory that women and men emitted seeds that
merged together in wombs to create fetuses. It was not until 1827 that
Karl Ernst von Baer discovered the ovum. Ancient humoral beliefs thus
guided explanations of sexual dysfunction and miscarriages. Ironically,
individuals first identified women, whose bodies, they explained, were
dominated by colder and wetter humors than men’s, as the objects of
male temptation, then condemned their sex for being the cause of male
concupiscence. Traditionally, to restore the balance of the supposed four
bodily humors, surgeons bled women as soon as their pregnancy was
known.16
To aid their attempts to sire male children, despite their physi-
cians’ reliance on ancient theories, premodern Europeans turned to
Christianity for explanations that resulted in a rather odd social construc-
tion of human sexuality. Many forbidden practices in Christian peniten-
tial books focused on and forbade illegal activities in marital intercourse.
They warned husbands not to play the adulterers with their wives
because excessive emitting of their seeds would cause great harm to their
male bodies. When in 1543 Charles V planned to wed Maria Manuela of
Portugal, for example, his physicians informed him to avoid sexual indul-
gences.17 Religious edicts forbade Christians to marry or to have sex-
ual intercourse on special holy days and during fasting seasons, such as
Advent, and to refrain from doing so during their wives’ menstrual peri-
ods. Thus, viewing sexuality, like all “functions of life,” through a sacred
lens, church leaders attempted to assist their parishioners in preventing
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  105

the birth of malformed fetuses since they and their contemporaries inter-
preted these deformities not only as personal tragedies but also as God’s
judgments on both their parents and their society; indeed, they viewed
them as predictors of “ominous social” events.18
In May 1510, some months after the birth of her stillborn daughter,
Katherine of Aragon acknowledged in a letter to her father her unsuc-
cessful reliance on God’s help for her delivery. When in labor, she con-
fessed, she had made a vow to donate a rich headdress to St. Peter the
Martyr of the Franciscan Observant Order in Spain. After recovering
from childbirth, she sent the headdress to a niece of her father’s treasurer
who had planned to become a nun in that order. Since the treasurer, a
man named Morales, had kept both Katherine’s letter and the headdress,
the queen asked Ferdinand to reprimand him.19 In England, if not in
Spain, at that time, parents actually had the prerogative to control their
children’s correspondence.20
In addition to ancient medical theories and Christian doctrine, people
also relied on traditional folklore concerning childbirth. They believed
conception could only occur if both partners found pleasure in the sexual
bonding; that if a pregnant woman glanced at a hairy animal, her fetus
would exhibit excessive hair; and that if she received a fright or traveled
too great a distance, she might miscarry. During his reign, Henry VIII
expressed some acceptance of these beliefs. In 1518, while on his sum-
mer progress, he sent a message to Wolsey explaining that as he thought
Katherine of Aragon was pregnant, he believed that it was too dangerous
a time for him to have her removed the great distance to London. Later,
during his summer progress in 1537, the king wrote Thomas Howard,
third duke of Norfolk, that he gave “humble thanks to Almighty God”
for the quickening of Jane’s child. He and his council had decided that
he would not travel away from her more than sixty miles because of con-
cerns that she “might take a fright at some sudden displeasant rumors
and bruits.” Folklore also claimed that boys came from the seed of the
right testicle and that if the right breast of the mother was larger than
the left one, the fetus she carried was male. A sickly pregnancy and a
larger left breast supposedly indicated a female fetus.21
Many associated certain foods with love that might have a positive
effect on pregnancy and childbirth. Eggs, birds, and artichokes figured
large in the folklore. In 1537, for example, Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount
Lisle and lord deputy of Calais, sent a dozen quail to a delighted king
and queen, who ordered them roasted, half for dinner and the other
106  R.M. WARNICKE

half for supper. They also requested more quail but somewhat fatter
ones. Furthermore, in sixteenth-century England, the eating of arti-
chokes became popular because some people believed that this vegeta-
ble strengthened the husband’s stomach, making it more likely that he
would sire male children. With this popularity in mind, it is noteworthy
that in July 1534, Sir Edward Ryngeley, high marshal of Calais, wrote to
Lord Lisle about his recent discussion with the king concerning a pos-
sible royal visit to Calais. Ryngeley advised Lisle to order his officials to
keep “all the artichokes they had there for the king’s Grace. This is his
special commandment.” This entire mixture of ancient medical knowl-
edge, godly belief, and traditional folklore formed the basis of their
understanding of human reproduction.22
It is difficult to determine when early modern English kings and
queens might have set aside time for sexual intimacy, since they occupied
private lodgings apart from each other and since evidence about their
daily schedules remains incomplete. Few personal records exist for Henry
VII’s reign. The information that can be gleaned from surviving records,
mostly state and diplomatic records, refers almost completely to official
business. In March 1499, a Spanish ambassador, Don Pedro de Ayala,
made the first extant diplomatic statement about Elizabeth of York and
childbirth when he noted her recent delivery of a son who was chris-
tened, but he did not name the child. He had also heard that it was an
easier birth than expected. No other speculation about her possible preg-
nancies can be found in these dispatches until her death in 1503, when a
Venetian document called “News from England” indicates that she died
after childbirth. It is not even known, as stated in Chap. 2, when Henry
and Elizabeth began to live together as husband and wife. As Arthur
was born on September 19, 1486, it is likely that they had sworn pri-
vate vows and had been cohabiting since at least December 10, 1485,
when Parliament requested that the king marry her, but as noted, a
problem with dating the conception in December exists, since the church
forbade marriage or sexual intercourse during Advent, which began on
November 29 in 1485. However, as king, Henry could have obtained a
license from Archbishop Bourchier or his chancellor to waive those pro-
hibitions. If that were the case, then dating their conception at the time
of their private marriage in November or December would mean that
Arthur’s birth was not early, as is usually assumed.23
Diplomatic documents and courtiers’ comments, which are much more
plentiful for his son’s reign, do indicate some daily routines. In 1540,
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  107

Charles de Marillac, the French ambassador, discovered that Henry VIII

had adopted a new schedule: he rose between 5:00 and 6:00 AM, heard
mass at 7:00 AM, and then rode and hunted until 10:00 AM, when he
dined. As Marillac also recalled that Henry admitted feeling much bet-
ter in the countryside following this schedule than during his routine at
his Thames palaces he obviously had changed some of his habits. Indeed,
earlier in 1528, he seems to have met with Katherine of Aragon every
morning, perhaps to hear mass. In 1541, after Katherine Howard’s arrest,
she recalled that every afternoon about 6:00 PM, he sent Sir Thomas
Heneage, groom of the stole, with a message for her, probably the supper
hour.24
Mealtimes and schedules could and did vary over time. The court
“Ordinances for Henry VIII’s Household” in 1526 had set dinner for
the king at 11:00 AM and supper at 6:00 PM, but also claimed that no
“fixed” time existed. By 1545, the royal couple sat down to eat dinner
and supper in their chambers at 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM. Plenty of evi-
dence proves that after dinner Henry turned to governmental business,
especially audiences with diplomats and meetings with his councilors. In
July 1546, the aging king refused to hold an audience with an ambas-
sador after dinner, choosing instead to go hunting.25 When married to
Katherine of Aragon, the king made a habit of dining with her in her
chamber on festival days. Sometimes after dinner he also invited an
ambassador or other official to attend him in her chamber, where they
were amused with music and dancing.26 Occasionally he gave up hunt-
ing in the morning before dinner to perform official duties, such as the
ennoblement of Thomas Cromwell as earl of Essex in April 1540; Henry
then dined with Anne of Cleves in her chamber. Later, in 1543, he simi-
larly ennobled William, Lord Parr, as earl of Essex before dinner, but he
then ate in the council chamber and not with the queen.27
The reason for seeking information about his daily routine is to find
times when he might have had some intimate moments with his wives,
since he needed a male heir. Probably these rendezvous occurred after
supper, although this timing could lead to scheduling issues as well. For
example, Sir Thomas Cromwell met with the king at supper apparently
in his privy chamber in 1535. Earlier, in 1522, Sir Thomas More, one
of his councilors, delivered some dispatches to the king, who postponed
reading them until 6:00 PM. In his record of this incident, More did
not indicate where he had met with Henry to discuss the contents of
that correspondence. With the business completed, More departed, but
108  R.M. WARNICKE

shortly thereafter, having received a letter from Wolsey, he returned to

the queen’s chamber with it, as he informed the cardinal, and Henry
read the message aloud to Katherine. In yet another incident, when in
July 1536, Ralph Sadler, gentleman of the privy chamber, attempted
to give some letters to the king, who was on his way to Jane’s cham-
ber for supper, he postponed the reading of them. Later, Henry sum-
moned Sadler to his privy chamber. Sadler did not indicate how long he
had waited to meet with the king, but he noted at the end of his message
about the encounter to Cromwell that he had finished writing it at mid-
night, the usual bedtime for the court, he explained. Perhaps this was the
bedtime for the king’s officials, but surely not for Henry, who usually
arose early to go hunting. Indeed, his 1526 “Ordinances” commanded
the gentlemen ushers to bring “livery” for “all-night” for the king and
queen between 8:00 and 9:00 PM.28 Perhaps because of the English
people’s eating habits, Sadler might not have found the delay unusual. In
late 1497, Raimondo de Soncino, the Milanese ambassador in England,
informed Duke Ludovico Maria Sforza that he ate ten or twelve courses
at two meals a day that lasted three hours each, and that he did this for
the love of his excellency.29
Simon Thurley has speculated that when Henry joined his queens for
supper, he had decided to sleep with them, although obviously consider-
ing the needs of his officials, these encounters had to be prearranged.
As an example for his behavior, Thurley cited the witnesses’ testimony
concerning the marriage night of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon. They
finished supper at 5:00 PM; then, after they waited three hours for their
bedroom to be prepared, they lay down on the bed, which had been
blessed. This seems a likely schedule for Henry VIII’s intimate moments
with his wives, especially when it is noted that at Hampton Court and
Greenwich, at least, he possessed two beds. One was the elaborate bed of
estate that stood in his official bedchamber. He did not spend the night
on it but rather slept in another chamber on a smaller, more comfortable
bed. Daily, his officials changed its linen and sprinkled his bed with holy
water. By the 1540s, he also possessed a bed in the queen’s chamber.30
Royal officials and others conducting business at court often watched
for signs of the queens’ pregnancies. Learning about their hoped-for con-
dition proved difficult because women did not possess separate maternity
clothes. To accommodate their weight gain, expectant mothers added
extra pieces, stomachers or placards, to their dresses, which already con-
sisted of component parts. After childbirth, they removed these pieces.
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  109

Even a small weight gain could lead to the circulation of rumors about a
pregnancy. In late 1511, for example, Wolsey wrote Richard Foxe, bishop
of Winchester, that Katherine of Aragon was thought to be with child,
but no record of a birth exists. Indeed, reproduction can and could be a
difficult process since at least one-third of all conceptions spontaneously
terminate. Because of the length of Katherine of Aragon’s reign, records
about whether or not she was pregnant are more plentiful than those
of Henry VIII’s other queens. Two documents allude to the size of her
stomach in 1518, the first pregnancy after the birth of Mary and her last
confinement. In April, Richard Pace, when informing Wolsey that he had
heard rumors that she was with child, said that he prayed to God that it
would be a prince. Later, Pace at Woodstock reported to Wolsey that she
had arrived there with a “big belly” and that the Te Deum would be sung
at St. Paul’s in London. Ultimately, she gave birth to a stillborn daugh-
ter. Although Anne Boleyn’s reign was much shorter than Katherine’s, in
April 1534, her receiver general, George Taylor, informed Lord Lisle that
she had a “goodly belly” and he prayed to God that it would be a prince,
but no record of a birth can be found. When in June 1537 the king and
his officials learned about the quickening of Jane’s child, priests sang Te
Deum at churches in York, London, and probably in other towns. No
rumors about the possible pregnancies of the last three Tudor queens
exist.31
According to Henry VII’s “Articles,” a chamber for the birth of the
royal children should be selected and prepared. Normally the expect-
ant queen entered it some four to six weeks before her expected deliv-
ery date. Usually the queen and king chose a chamber at one of the
royal palaces, but in 1486, Elizabeth of York and Henry VII decided to
establish her lying-in room at St. Swithun’s Priory, Winchester, a city
traditionally associated with legendary King Arthur, and of course they
named their heir after that famous individual. Usually this legend has
been linked to the Tudor line, since Henry, through his father, Edmund
Tudor, earl of Richmond, descended from Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon,
the supposed last British king, and in 1485, he marched through Wales
to Bosworth Field under the red dragon banner of Cadwaladr. A less
well publicized fact is that Elizabeth also descended from Cadwaladr
through the marriage of Richard, earl of Cambridge, to Anne Mortimer,
daughter of Roger, earl of March and earl of Ulster, the parents of
her father, Richard Plantagenet, duke of York. Like the Tudors, the
Mortimers claimed they could trace their ancestry back to Cadwaladr.
110  R.M. WARNICKE

Thus, Henry’s and Elizabeth’s marriage united not only the Yorkist and
Lancastrian descendants of Edward III but also those of Cadwaladr.32
The place of birth is not always known for Elizabeth’s other children,
but she did choose Westminster Palace for Margaret, her second child, in
1489 and Greenwich Palace for Henry, her third child, in 1491. Where
she delivered Mary in 1496 is unknown. The third child, who reigned
as Henry VIII, married three women who had children that lived long
enough to be christened in a church ceremony. Katherine of Aragon
delivered her first son, Henry, who died a few weeks after his christening,
at Richmond in 1511, and her only surviving child, Mary, at Greenwich
Palace in 1516. Anne established her chamber at Greenwich, where she
gave birth to Elizabeth in 1533, and Jane delivered her son, Edward, at
Hampton Court Palace in 1537.
The “Articles” required the queen’s officials to hang rich cloth of
arras on the roof and the sides of the selected chamber, as well as on all
the windows, except one that should be decorated so that light could be
let into the room if the queen so desired. Her officials also covered the
chamber’s floor with carpeting and furnished the room with a cupboard
for plates and supplies, a royal bed, and a pallet bed. Each bed had to be
dressed in fine linen and possess a number of pillows. A pane (bedspread)
of ermine embroidered with rich cloth covered the royal bed and like-
wise the pallet, and a traverse of damask separated the two beds. Since
the “Articles” mentioned no birthing chair, perhaps the queen delivered
her child on the pallet bed. Certainly it would ordinarily be the one on
which she slept. The bed of estate was reserved for receiving visitors after
her delivery. Only women who had borne children could perform the
office of midwifery, and if the child did not live, they would have to give
testimony as to the cause of its death.33
Before retiring to her chamber, the queen, attended by selected lords
and ladies, went to the chapel royal to receive the Eucharist and then
to the great chamber where, sitting under her cloth of estate, she con-
sumed some spice and wine. Specific evidence does exist about Elizabeth
of York’s entering her chamber at Westminster in 1489: she dismissed
her male escort with a request for “their good prayers”; then her lord
chamberlain drew the traverse, shutting them out. Special prayers for
childbirth also existed. Later, Henry Bull wrote in a prayer that God’s
almighty power “was most evident” in the “conceiving, forming, and
bringing forth of man.” Recalling the “intolerable pains” of childbirth,
he begged God to ease them so that the woman might “safely bring
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  111

forth that which by thy goodness she hath conceived.” Bull continued,
“Give her strength, and make perfect that which thou hast so graciously
begun” so that she might “praise thy blessed name forever.” Normally
only the ladies appointed to see to her needs and to accept from officials
at the chamber door items necessary for her comfort remained with the
queen, but in 1489, a breach in this protocol occurred when her mater-
nal cousin, the French ambassador, Francis de Luxembourg, Viscount
Martiques, and three of his attendants, having just arrived in England,
momentarily gained access to her chamber to greet her. For all her deliv-
eries, Elizabeth had the assistance of the same midwife, Alice Massy, who
earned £10 annually. In 1504, a record in the Patent Rolls indicates that
Henry VII gave an annuity of £5 to her as the midwife of his late con-
sort. During their deliveries, at least one of the Tudor queens, Elizabeth
of York, wore “Our Lady’s girdle,” a relic housed at Westminster Abbey
as late as 1505. Finally, the “Articles” state that the king should station
the selected godparents nearby for the christening. Probably he should
provide for their attendance in case an infant believed too sickly to live
long needed immediate christening.34
After successful childbirth, three royal rituals took place. First, the
new mothers sent out letters announcing the birth and sex of their
children. For example, on October 12, 1537, Edward’s birthday, his
mother, Jane, wrote a letter to the council, informing them of his birth
and pointing out that he was lawfully conceived.35 Then the christenings
occurred, mostly within two to three days. The “Articles” specify a noble
hierarchy for the procession to the chapel or church without the parents,
who did not attend the ritual. A duchess should carry the child to the
newly decorated church, and a second duchess should bear the chrisom
cloth on her shoulder. Two hundred servants with torches should pre-
cede the child, who was to be dressed in a rich mantle of cloth of gold
furred with ermine. The “Articles” do not specify that the godparents
(two men and a woman for a prince and two women and a man for a
princess) should name the child at the church door, but at least by the
birth of Mary in 1516, this had become the custom. Usually the god-
parents selected the child’s name, as did Mary, queen dowager of France,
acting as her niece’s godmother in 1516, thereby causing difficulties for
generations of students and movie makers in distinguishing between the
two Mary Tudors, who were both queens. In the earlier case of Arthur,
however, the king and queen probably overrode the traditional right
of godparents. After a bishop completed the christening ceremony and
112  R.M. WARNICKE

servants lit the torches, a godparent took the infant to the high altar to
be confirmed by another godparent. Then the godparents and the other
witnesses consumed spice and wine. Next the godparents offered their
gifts to their godchild, which various lords and knights bore before the
child as he was returned to the birthing chamber. If the baby was a prin-
cess, ladies carried the gifts.36
The christening details of all the infants cannot be addressed here
because of space and some duplication of information. Arthur’s receives
special attention since several accounts of his ritual at Winchester
Cathedral have survived. Basically the plans, as set out in the “Articles,”
were followed, except more personal details can be found in these
accounts. For example, they add information about the Winchester ritual:
church officials prepared a “solemn font” of silver and gilt for the sacra-
ment and a special step or stand for the officiating priest, John Alcock,
bishop of Worcester, who hallowed the font. In the procession to the
cathedral, Lady Anne Plantagenet, the queen’s sister, carried the chrism
cloth, which she pinned to her breast. It was a white robe, the color signi-
fying the child’s innocence, with a hood to protect the chrism anointment
on his head. Behind her, Lady Cecily Plantagenet, the queen’s eldest sis-
ter, bore the prince, who was wrapped in a mantle of crimson cloth of
gold. At the church’s porch, Alcock received the child and named him.
Arthur’s grandmother and godmother, Elizabeth, awaited them in the
cathedral. Thomas Stanley, earl of Derby, his paternal grandmother’s hus-
band, and Thomas Fitzalan, Lord Mautravers (future earl of Arundel),
served as his godfathers. After his attendants dressed Arthur in the chrism
robe, Alcock christened him, and the dowager queen took him to the
high altar, where John de Vere, thirteenth earl of Oxford, whose belated
arrival had delayed the beginning of the christening, held him while
Peter Courtenay, bishop of Exeter, confirmed him. Then the gift ritual
occurred: the dowager queen offered a rich cup of gold; Oxford gave a
pair of gilt basins; Derby presented a rich salt of gild; and Mautravers gave
a coffer of gold. Finally, Lady Cecily returned the child, dressed again
in his original rich garments, to his parents at St. Swithun’s Priory. His
grateful mother later founded a chantry at Winchester Cathedral, which
she dedicated to the Virgin Mary in thankfulness for her safe delivery.37
One of the striking differences between the accounts of the rituals of
Henry VIII’s infants and this narrative of Arthur’s christening include
the attendance of London representatives at Elizabeth’s and Edward’s
ceremonies in 1533 and 1537, respectively. After the christening, in
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  113

Elizabeth’s case at least, the king sent word in his name to the Londoners,
thanking them for their participation.38
When the infant was returned to court after the christening, according
to the “Articles,” he was removed to his nursery, the servants of which
included a lady governess, nurses, four chamberers, called rockers, and
a chamberlain, who required them to swear oaths of allegiance and to
supervise the food provided for the infant. A great cradle of estate, meas-
uring five and a half feet long and two feet wide and covered with crim-
son cloth of gold, stood in the nursery for the infant. The “Articles” also
refer to a “swaddling band” and “swathe-bands,” which concerned the
custom of swaddling infants. Traditionally their attendants used a roll of
cloth, two inches wide, to swaddle the babies’ bodies, binding down the
stomach, arms, and legs, until they could not move. Their heads were also
encased in the cloth, leaving only a small circle of the face visible. The
servants usually removed the swaddling cloth only once a day, although
this practice might vary for a royal infant, to provide the children with
a few minutes of exercise. By four months, they had freed the infants’
arms, and between the eighth and twelfth month, they freed the children
entirely. Not only did the swaddling make it easier to carry the babies, but
also, in cold weather, it helped to keep the children warm.39
For childhood deaths, modern demographers have offered a context.
A study of the British ducal families by Thomas Hollingsworth indicates
that between 1480 and 1679, approximately 31.5% of children under
the age of sixteen died. Roger Schofield’s figures, which are for children
generally, indicate that in late Tudor and early Stuart England, 34.4% of
those under the age of ten died, as compared to 2.4% in the twentieth
century. According to Ralph Houlbrooke, the first year of life was the
most deadly, as one of five to six children died before their first birthday.
These figures are for larger populations than royal families, which had a
greater fatality rate, at least among the Tudors. Elizabeth and Henry lost
five of their eight children, including Arthur, who died in 1502, before
the age of sixteen. The number of Katherine of Aragon’s pregnancies has
been estimated at six or seven, but Mary, born in 1516, alone lived to
adulthood. Anne Boleyn was pregnant at least twice, and perhaps three
times, and only Elizabeth was born alive in 1533. Jane became preg-
nant once and was delivered of a healthy boy whose death, like Arthur’s,
occurred before he reached his sixteenth birthday in 1553.40
Schofield also estimated maternal deaths after childbirth. He found
that ten mothers per 1000 births died in the late sixteenth century but
114  R.M. WARNICKE

sixteen per 1000 in the later seventeenth century. By contrast, in 1980,

in Great Britain the ratio had fallen to 0.01 per 1000 births. Finally,
he determined that mothers who gave birth six or seven times had a 6
percent chance of dying. Despite her relatively small chance of dying,
Elizabeth of York’s demise occurred only a few days after the premature
birth of a daughter, her eighth delivery, probably of puerperal fever. As
the midwives repeatedly spread items such as butter, goose grease, hen’s
fat, or whole eggs on the vagina and were unaware of the need for clean-
liness, it is no wonder that infection sometimes ensued. Information
taken from the scarce surviving parish registers suggests that puerperal
fever caused half of all maternal mortalities. Jane Seymour, the third wife
of Elizabeth’s son, was unluckier than his mother, as Jane died after only
one delivery, perhaps because her midwife failed to remove some parts
of the placenta from her uterus, causing her to hemorrhage. Whether
or not this modern speculation is correct, hemorrhaging did lead to her
death some twelve days after her delivery. Percival Willughby, a male
midwife who died in 1658, noted that he had never heard of the survival
of any woman who suffered the “flux of blood” after childbirth.41
The third ritual, which occurred about thirty to forty days after child-
birth, was the purification or churching of the surviving mother, which
was patterned after the purification of the Virgin Mary and may have
had its origins in the notion that conception could not take place unless
the mother enjoyed the sexual encounter. Although Simon Renard,
the Spanish ambassador in Mary’s reign, claimed that it was an ancient
English practice to enter the chamber for forty days before birth and to
stay there forty days after birth, the number of days did vary. For exam-
ple, Elizabeth of York delivered her daughter, Margaret, on November
29, 1489, but was privately churched on December 27. A woman was
considered unclean after childbirth and incapable of returning to her
normal social relations until she underwent this ritual, which offered her
an opportunity to celebrate religiously her successful delivery and sur-
vival of childbirth. Normally, in her birthing chamber, she should be
accompanied to the bed of estate by noblewomen, and after the trav-
erse was drawn between the two beds, an appointed duke arrived to
accompany the new mother, wearing a white veil, to the choir door of
the church. There a priest met her and conducted a short service, which
focused on a reading of Psalm 121, beginning with verse 1: “I have lifted
mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help.” After this ser-
vice, she gave an offering and her child’s chrism to the church, and she
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  115

normally received the Eucharist. If the infant died before the mother’s
churching, the child was buried in the chrism. No description of the
Tudor queens’ churchings, all of which were probably private, has sur-
vived, except for short references to Elizabeth of York’s in 1486.42
Of the seven queens, only Elizabeth of York, Katherine of Aragon,
and briefly Anne Boleyn had an opportunity to have input into their
children’s lives. It is not evident just how influential Anne Boleyn was
in determining Henry VIII’s attitudes toward his daughter and her
stepdaughter, Mary, although Eustace Chapuys blamed the new queen
almost entirely for Mary’s mistreatment and placement in Elizabeth’s
household. The king’s sixth wife, Katherine Parr, clearly took seriously
her role as stepmother of his three children. As she had already served
as stepmother to John (b. 1520) and Margaret (b. 1525), the children
of her second husband, John Neville, Lord Latimer, who died in early
1542, she had the experience to serve in this capacity.43
An educational division existed in early modern families. Fathers
mostly concerned themselves with the training of their sons and expected
their wives to see to that of their daughters. Indeed, of Henry VII’s
daughters, only Margaret’s name appears, and then only once, in his
Patent Rolls. In March 1502, he ordered the sheriffs of England to issue
proclamations concerning the peace with Scotland and the future mar-
riage of his daughter, Margaret, to James IV. A Book of Hours has sur-
vived, however, with his comment to Margaret: “Remember your kind
and loving father in your good prayers.” While royal mothers supervised
their daughters’ education, their husbands must have been consulted
about some of the major changes in their lives. In October 1535, for
example, Lady Margaret Bryan and other officials of Elizabeth’s house-
hold asked the king whether his two-year-old child should be weaned.
The decision-making process remained unexplained; thus, whether he
consulted with Anne Boleyn is unknown, but ultimately Sir William
Paulet (future marquess of Winchester) related to Cromwell that the
king had determined that she should be weaned. Finally, most queens
did not have much input into their children’s marriages. These decisions
were usually worked out in diplomatic exchanges under their fathers’
directions and will be discussed in Chap. 5.44
Kings established households for their male heirs and often housed
the younger children together in a nursery. In 1487, Arthur, for exam-
ple, lived in his household at Farnham, Surrey. Until boys reached their
sixth birthday, they wore the same clothing as girls, and their immediate
116  R.M. WARNICKE

attendants were mainly women, including a lady governess, nursers,

and rockers. After boys reached the age of six, they were breeched; this
was a ceremonial occasion when breeches and a doublet replaced their
long-skirted frock. Parents then had them removed from the nursery
and handed over to male governors and tutors for their education and
upbringing. This was true for all of the sons, whether they lived in their
own households or within a children’s nursery, as probably Henry VII’s
other offspring did. At least these accommodations were true in 1499,
when Erasmus found the future Henry VIII at a royal palace with his
two sisters and young Edmund. Normally, historians have assumed that
Erasmus met them at Eltham, but Roy Brook has reminded his read-
ers that Erasmus never actually named the palace but said only that he
had walked with Thomas More from William Blount, Lord Mountjoy’s,
Greenwich home, to a neighboring village with a palace. Brook believed
that Erasmus actually found the children at Greenwich Palace. Later,
Mary Tudor faced a difficult situation after the Statute of 1534 dropped
her from the line of succession in favor of Elizabeth. Their father
arranged for Mary to live with Elizabeth, but because she was viewed as
illegitimate, she occupied a lower status than her still-legitimate younger
sister.45
A huge difference existed in the intellectual education of the girls of
these two generations. Elizabeth of York’s daughters received the tradi-
tional royal or noble education: they learned to read and write English
and French, including chivalrous romances; to read Church Latin; to
play musical instruments, such as the lute, virginals, harpsichord, or clavi-
chord; to dance; and finally to sew or embroider. The greater respon-
sibilities of the mother over her daughters than her sons is obvious in
Elizabeth of York’s privy purse expenses, which mostly survive from after
Arthur’s death. With two exceptions, the references to him focus on
debts she owed for “stuff” for his marriage to Katherine of Aragon. The
exceptions include the reward to a servant of his who brought a message
to her, and some money given at the departure of a Scotsman who had
been his schoolmaster. His wife, the princess of Wales, also figures in the
accounts, as the queen paid for “stuff” for their wedding, sent five bucks
to her widowed daughter-in-law, and rewarded a messenger who came
from her.46 Her second son, Henry, duke of York, born in 1491, appears
only once in her accounts: she gave a reward to his “fool” for bringing
a carp to her.47 By contrast, the queen purchased many articles of cloth-
ing for Margaret, born in 1489, and Mary, born in 1496. She also gave
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  117

spending money to Margaret, purchased a lute for her, and sent a reward
to her minstrels.48
Their brothers’ education differed greatly from the sisters and seems
to have been supervised by their father. Both learned Latin as well as
French by reading classical and Renaissance authors, and Henry later
displayed an understanding of Italian and some Spanish. The princes
had distinguished tutors: Arthur studied first with John Rede, formerly
headmaster of Winchester College, then with Bernard André and finally
Thomas Linacre, while Henry read with John Skelton. Both learned to
dance and to play some instruments, at least the lute and the virginals.49
In addition, even at an early age, they obtained important governmen-
tal positions with deputies actually performing the chores for them. This
was an effort in part to avoid giving the posts to somewhat threatening
great noblemen. Henry VII bestowed on Arthur, his heir, the titles of
prince of Wales, duke of Cornwall, and earl of Chester. The king’s Patent
Rolls have many references to Arthur, from services provided for him to
other offices bestowed on him. From at least 1493, when he was about
7 years old, he possessed the duty to appoint justices of oyer and ter-
miner in some counties, and he also held memberships on many commis-
sions of the peace.50
It was not just because Arthur was his heir that Henry VII began to
grant him titles and offices; he adopted these tactics for his younger son
as well. As the king’s second son, Henry was first ennobled as the duke
of York and gained several offices while Arthur was still alive: warden
general of the Marches of England, lieutenant of Ireland, constable of
Dover Castle, and warden of the Cinque Ports. It is interesting that to
this point no tradition existed for the second son to be named duke of
York, the only exception having been Edward IV’s second son. Henry
VII chose to honor his wife’s family by granting that title to his name-
sake second son, thus beginning a tradition that lasted through the sev-
enteenth century and that was resumed intermittently later. About a year
after Arthur’s death, the king installed the duke of York as the prince of
Wales.51
The major difference between the two Tudor generations appeared
in the girls’ academic education. Katherine of Aragon had benefited
from her classical training in Latin as a child, and when her daughter
was old enough to begin learning Latin, the humanist Thomas Linacre,
who had served as the royal physician since 1509, may have tutored
118  R.M. WARNICKE

her, since he dedicated to her a Latin grammar, Rudimenta grammati-

ces, in about 1523. After his death in 1524, the queen had personally
assisted her daughter with classical training and had also sought the assis-
tance of Juan Luis Vives. While his Latin book, translated into English
as Instruction of a Christian Woman, which he dedicated to Katherine
but composed for Mary, emphasized chastity, he later responded to the
queen’s plea for more academic rigor, offering an alternative curriculum,
De Ratione Studii Puerilis, also dedicated to Katherine, in which he pro-
posed techniques for learning Latin and Greek speech and composition
and recommended that she read the Gospels, Plutarch, Plato, Cicero,
Sir Thomas More, Erasmus, and other serious writers, but no authors of
poetry or romantic literature. Despite his providing more academic rigor
at Katherine’s request, Timothy Elston has determined that Vives did
not intend to prepare her to rule but still retained the conservative view
that the place of women was in the home, teaching their daughters.52
When in 1525 her father momentarily seemed to accept that Mary
would be his heir, he made it possible for her to act as the de facto prin-
cess of Wales. Although hoping he might still sire another son, he did not
grant her the title in a formal ceremony, but he did send his nine-year-old
daughter to Wales, where her household of some 300 members served
as a viceregal court, costing him almost £4500. There, until 1527, she
enjoyed the status of a prince of Wales with a Latin schoolmaster, Richard
Fetherston, who continued as her tutor until 1534, and a French tutor,
Giles Duwes, who had earlier taught her father’s sister and her god-
mother, Mary Tudor, and who later printed a book that described the
princess of Wales’ court. Her mother and her father thus provided her
with a careful education that made it possible for her to translate schol-
arly Latin works.53
Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn, could not have had much influence
on her education, but evidence of her concern for her has survived in
accounts detailing purchases of clothing for her. Anne’s actions in the
last days before her imprisonment ultimately had a tremendous impact
on her daughter’s reign. In late April 1536, a concerned Anne begged
her chaplain, Matthew Parker, to see to her daughter’s well-being. Years
later, Parker, as Elizabeth’s archbishop of Canterbury, complained to
William Cecil, Lord Burghley, about her orders to him to enforce the
wearing of the required vestments for her clergy. About six days before
Anne’s arrest, he recalled, when she asked him to look after her daugh-
ter, he took that request seriously. He confided to Burghley, if he had
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  119

not “been so much bound to the mother,” he would not have engaged
in the present vestiarian enforcement, as he did not care about surplices
and other vestments. Henry VIII, however, must be credited for seeing
that Elizabeth gained an impressive education, for Jane, Anne of Cleves,
and Katherine Howard paid little or no attention to her, as still only a
child under the age of nine in early 1542.54
Although Henry provided his children with various stepmothers, only
two of them had some impact or influence on their well-being. Eustace
Chapuys believed that when Mary was forced to move into Elizabeth’s
household at Hatfield in 1534, her life was placed in danger because of
the influence of the governess of the household, Anne Boleyn’s paternal
aunt, Anne Shelton née Boleyn. Clearly the new queen did want her own
daughter to be maintained as Henry’s successor, but surely her politi-
cal ambitions alone did not lead to Mary’s ill treatment. The king, who
had prevented his elder daughter from visiting her mother since 1531,
demanded that she recognize the illegality of her parents’ marriage and
her own illegitimate status, and confirm his headship of the church in
England. After Anne Boleyn’s execution in May 1536, Henry required
Cromwell to pressure Mary into accepting, albeit begrudgingly, those
concessions, which her most recent biographer, John Edwards, has said
“would haunt her for the rest of her life.”55
The other stepmother, Katherine Parr, had a positive influence over her
stepchildren, at least as long as she remained the reigning queen. When
regent, during Henry’s absence in France in 1544, she momentarily
brought them all together at court. Mary was then twenty-eight, while
her younger half-siblings, Elizabeth and Edward, were almost 11 and 7
years of age. For the most part thereafter, only the eldest stepchild, Mary,
was often at court, and it was Katherine who requested that she translate
into English the Paraphrase of the Gospel of St. John in The First Tome
or Volume of the Paraphrases of Erasmus on the New Testament. It was first
written in Latin by Erasmus. Although Mary did not complete the trans-
lation, which her chaplain, Dr. Francis Malett, finished, it was largely her
product that appeared in the final publication. In his dedication to these
translations, Nicholas Udall praised Mary’s scholarship. Aysha Pollnitz has
recently evaluated Mary’s effort, claiming that it is a literal translation by
an “enthusiastic if inexperienced grammarian” with “greater rhetorical
sophistication” than she is sometimes credited.56
Katherine also encouraged the language studies of Elizabeth and
Edward, her two younger stepchildren. It was then customary to give
120  R.M. WARNICKE

presents for New Year’s Day rather than for Christmas. In 1544 and
1545, Elizabeth completed the translations into English of Marguerite
de Navarre’s Le Mirror de l’ame Pécheresse (The glass of the sinful soul)
and Chap. 1 of John Calvin’s Institution de la Religion Chrestienne
(How we ought to know God) for New Year’s gifts to Katherine Parr.
In 1545, she also translated the queen’s Prayers and Meditations,
which will be discussed in more detail in Chap. 5, into Latin, French,
and Italian for her father. She had bound the front and back covers of
these three volumes in fabric that she had embroidered with the initials
HR and KP in gold and silver threads, with “chain-stitching” around
the covers’ edges, and with pansy flowers on the four corners. As is well
known, Elizabeth’s Greek and Latin tutors included William Grindal
and later Roger Ascham.57 Katherine also encouraged Edward to com-
pose to her letters in Latin, some of which have survived. He enjoyed as
his tutors the Cambridge scholars Richard Coxe, Sir John Cheke, and
Sir Anthony Cooke. Along with Elizabeth, he also had a French master,
Jean Belmain.58
All the queens had relatives who benefited from their royal alli-
ances, but in the case of the sisters of Elizabeth of York, Henry VII
controlled their marriages. Although he received proposals for them to
marry into prestigious foreign families, because of concerns that their
husbands might try to use their wives’ Yorkist claims to the throne to
challenge him for the kingship, he arranged for three of them to marry
Englishmen. The eldest, Lady Cecily, wed John Welles, Viscount Welles,
the half-brother of his mother, Lady Richmond. Welles, some 20 years
older than she, did sire two girls with her, who died unmarried. After the
viscount’s death in 1499, Cecily angered Henry by secretly wedding a
Lincolnshire gentleman, Thomas Kyme. In retaliation, Henry seized the
Welles’s estates, but Lady Richmond was finally able to settle the dispute.
Another sister, Lady Anne, married Lord Thomas Howard, the future
third duke of Norfolk, a step in that family’s rehabilitation, since his
father and grandfather had supported Richard III. Annually, Elizabeth
of York paid Lord Howard ₤120 for her sister’s expenses. Before her
death in 1511, she gave birth to four children, all of whom died young.
Elizabeth’s third sister, Lady Katherine Plantagenet, suffered more
than her other siblings. She married Sir William Courtenay, the heir of
Edward, earl of Devon, who lived until 1509. In the meantime, Henry
VII had William imprisoned, suspecting him of aiding a Yorkist claimant,
Edmund de la Pole, duke of Suffolk and the son of Edward IV’s sister,
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  121

Elizabeth. This imprisonment left Lady Katherine and her children,

Henry, Edward, who died in 1502, and Margaret, momentarily depend-
ent on the financial aid of Elizabeth. Besides providing Katherine with
an annual amount of ₤50, the queen paid Margaret Cotton, perhaps the
wife of her master of the horse, Sir Roger Cotton, to care for her sister’s
children. After Elizabeth’s death in 1503, it is unclear how Katherine
survived financially, but after Henry VIII’s accession, he decided to grant
her a pension of 200 marks a year. Later he released her husband from
prison and in a new creation installed him as the earl of Devon. The final
surviving daughter, Lady Bridget Plantagenet, born in 1480, became a
nun at Dartford Priory in Kent at a young age, and Elizabeth gave the
nunnery an annual sum of ₤13, 6s. 8d., for her upkeep. In addition,
Henry VII’s uncle, Jasper Tudor, duke of Bedford, married Katherine,
the sister of Dowager Queen Elizabeth. The duchess of Bedford, already
the wealthy widow of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, whom
Richard III had ordered executed in 1483, had no surviving children
with Bedford.59
The relatives of Henry VIII’s many wives provided him with extended
political support without adding to the number of royal claimants to the
throne. Obviously, at least momentarily, the marriages to Katherine of
Aragon and Anne of Cleves led to treaties of peace with their parents’
and brother’s governments, respectively. As to the four English wives,
the first, Anne, was the daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn, who had already
achieved success as a diplomat, and the second, Jane, was the sister of Sir
Edward Seymour, a prominent courtier. Boleyn and his children, as well
as Seymour, gained property and noble titles as a result of these royal
marriages. Ultimately, Henry granted Boleyn the earldoms of Wiltshire
and Ormond and his three offspring the noble status of Rochford,
with Anne later becoming the marchioness of Pembroke and queen of
England. When William Carey, the husband of Anne’s sister, Lady Mary
Rochford, died in 1528, Anne, not yet the queen, was able to obtain
the wardship of their son, Henry. Later, as queen, she became quite
unhappy with Mary when she secretly married William Stafford, a soldier
of the retinue of Calais. Almost certainly the queen had been consider-
ing a noble husband for her sister. Anne also followed the career of Lord
Edmund Howard, comptroller of Calais, and the father of her cousin,
future Queen Katherine Howard. In 1531, Anne thanked Robert Fouler,
the brother of Thomas, vice treasurer of Calais, for his kindness to them.
The brother of Henry VIII’s third queen, Edward, reached the status of
122  R.M. WARNICKE

earl of Hertford, and in his will, the king placed Hertford, later enno-
bled as duke of Somerset, on the ruling council of his royal successor.
In 1543, well after Jane’s death, Wymond Carew, formerly Queen Jane’s
general receiver, explained to his brother-in-law, Sir Anthony Denny, a
member of the privy council, that they should seek the office of gentle-
man waiter to Prince Edward for a Mr. Croftes, whose mother was a sis-
ter of Jane’s father, Sir John Seymour. Carew reminded Denny that Jane
had favored Croftes.60
As Dakota Hamilton has noted, with reference to the Parr family, at
first Katherine’s brother, Sir William, won titles and grants, becoming by
a new creation earl of Essex in 1543, but despite these early favors, he
failed “to rise in power and influence in the fashion” of Seymour. This
example indicates that the king at first rewarded his new wives’ rela-
tives but failed to continue doing so if their abilities proved inadequate
for his needs. The husband of Katherine Parr’s sister, Anne, was William
Herbert, a member of the privy council and the recipient of some favora-
ble royal grants, although he had to wait until the reign of Edward VI
for his ennoblement as the earl of Pembroke. The least favor went to the
family of Henry’s fifth wife, Katherine Howard, whose brothers, Charles
and George, and half-sister, Isabel Leigh Baynton, the wife of her vice
chamberlain, obtained no new titles or offices but only some financial
support. This diminished favor did not quash the royal ambitions of
Charles, who courted Margaret Douglas—an affair, as noted earlier, that
led to their arrests.61 Henry finally resolved his immediate difficulties with
his niece by arranging her marriage to Matthew Stewart, earl of Lennox,
whose son, Henry, Lord Darnley, later complicated diplomatic matters
for Elizabeth I by becoming the husband of Mary, queen of Scots.
As already noted here, two of the queens, Elizabeth of York and
Katherine of Aragon, lost their heirs. Fortunately for Elizabeth, she had
given birth to another son in 1491, but even so, evidence survives of the
great grief that both she and Katherine felt at their personal losses. On
April 2, 1502, when the fifteen-year-old Arthur died in Wales, his council
sent information about it to the king’s council at Greenwich. The coun-
cilors dispatched one of his royal chaplains to inform Henry, who imme-
diately sent for Elizabeth so they could share their sorrow. She tried to
comfort him with reminders that he had the duty, after remembering
God, of thinking of his own personal well-being and the “comfort of the
realm and of her.” God had left him a fair prince and two fair princesses,
and they were both young enough for him to send them another son.
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  123

After Henry thanked her for the comfort, she returned to her chamber,
where the “natural and motherly remembrance of this great loss” caused
her ladies to beseech the king to comfort her. He came to her chamber
“in great haste” and spoke with her, reminding her of her previous advice
to him and of the need to thank God for their remaining son.62
Almost nine years later, according to Hall’s chronicle, after Henry
VIII’s and Katherine’s infant son died in February 1511, the king
attempted to comfort her by not showing his “great mourning.”
Katherine, however, “like a natural woman” greatly lamented the loss
of her son, but by the king’s “great persuasion,” her “sorrow was miti-
gated,” but not quickly. In his biography of the queen, Garrett Mattingly
pointed out that Henry’s grief was actually so great that the ambassadors
“dared not even offer condolences.”63 It would take another 16 years
without any sons before he would display his anguish at lacking a male
heir by establishing a national church so that he could dissolve this mar-
riage and try to sire another son with a new wife.
This chapter has investigated the intersection of religion and child-
birth and has examined the various religious rituals at court that set
godly examples for the kingdom. Besides highlighting the medical,
religious, and folklore views of Tudor society concerning childbirth, it
described the various rituals and ceremonies concerning the birth and
death of royal children and the childbirth deaths of Elizabeth of York
and Jane Seymour. It also discussed the involvement—or lack of involve-
ment—of Elizabeth of York and her six daughters-in-law in the lives and
education of the royal children and how the education of the sons and
daughters differed. Finally, it investigated the assistance they gave to
their relatives, then ended with examples of the grief that royal parents
felt when they lost their children, especially their male heirs.

Notes
1. Tigurimus Chelidonius, A Most Excellent Hystorie of the Institution and
First Beginning of Christian Princes, and the Originall of Kingdomes, trans.
James Chillester (London: H. Bynneman, 1571), pp. 6–85; Paul Monad,
The Power of Kings: Monarchy and Religion in Europe, 1589–1715 (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 3–40, and C.A.J. Armstrong,
“The Piety of Cecily, Duchess of York: A Study in Late Medieval
Culture,” For Hilaire Belloc: Essays in Honour of his 72nd Birthday, ed.
Douglas Woodruff (London: Sheed & Ward, 1942), pp. 73–94. See also,
124  R.M. WARNICKE

Fiona Kisby, “‘When the King Goeth a Procession:’ Chapel Ceremonies

and Services, the Ritual Year, and Religious Reforms at the Early Tudor
Court, 1485–1547,” Journal of British Studies 40 (2001), 44–75.
2. Alexander Grosart, ed., The Works in Verse and Prose of Nicholas Breton, 2
vols. (New York: AMS Press reprint, 1966), II, 7.
3. Kisby, “King Goesth a Procession,” p. 53 and for their membership, Kisby,
“Courtiers in the Community: The Musicians of the Royal Household
Chapel in Early Tudor Westminster,” The Reign of Henry VII: Proceedings
of the 1993 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Benjamin Thompson (Stamford:
Paul Watkins, 1995), pp. 229–260; for the estimated numbers, see David
Starkey, “The Age of the Household: Politics, Society, and the Arts c.
1300–1550,” The Later Middle Ages, ed. Stephen Medcalf (London:
Methuen, 1981), p. 247; for the hours, BL, Harleian MS 6807, f. 10;
Maria Dowling, ed., “William Latymer’s Chronickille of Anne Bulleyne,”
Camden Miscellany XXX, fourth series, vol. 39 (London: Royal Historical
Society, University College, 1990), p. 50. For John Foxe’s reliance on
Latimer, see Thomas Freeman, “Research, Rumour, and Propaganda,
Anne Boleyn in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs,” Historical Journal, 38(1995),
797–819; Scottish Record Office, Letters and Papers, Foreign and
Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R.H.
Brodie, 21 vols. in 35 and Addenda (London: HMSO, 1862–1932), II,
King’s Book of Payments, 1516, for example, “the chaplains and clerk of
her closet.” (Hereafter LP).
4. Dowling, “Latymer Chronickille” pp. 50–51, 54. She also left alms for the
poor at her death. See LP, XI, 381.
5. Nicholas Harris Nicolas, ed., The Privy Purse Expenditures of Elizabeth of
York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth (New York: A Facsimile
edition published by Barnes & Noble, 1972), pp. 1, 3–4, 8, 12, 33, 51;
for example, Dowling, “Latymer Chronickille,” p. 61.
6. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 12, 23, 30, 33, 37–38, 59–60, 67,78,
for example.
7. William Forrest, The History of Grisild the Second: A Narrative, in Verse,
of the Divorce of Queen Katharine of Aragon, ed. W.D. Macray (London:
Whittinghead and Wilkins, 1875), p. 46; Matthew Hansen, “The
Englishing of Catherine of Aragon in Sixteenth Century Literary and
Chronicle History,” High and Mighty Queens’ of Early Modern England:
Realities and Representations, ed. Carole Levin, Jo Eldridge Carney,
and Debra Barrett-Graves (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp.
79–101; LP, I, 678, II, 3018, III, 2585, IV, 641, VII, 469, XVII, 1489,
XX-I, 125(2); LP Addenda, 1878; T.N.A. E 101/422/15, for Anne
of Cleves; Dowling, “Latymer Chronickille,” p. 61; Robert Whiting,
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  125

The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the English
Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 1.
8. Kate Mertes, The English Noble Household, 1250–1600: Good Governance
and Politic Rule (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), p. 50, and Mertes, “The
Household as a Religious Community,” People, Politics and Community
in the Later Middle Ages, ed. Joel Rosenthal and Colin Richmond (New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987), p. 128; Hilda Johnstone, “Poor Relief
in the Royal Households of Thirteenth-Century England,” Speculum: A
Journal of Mediaeval Studies, 4 (1929), 149.
9. Eamon Duffy, Marking the Hours: English People and their Prayers, 1240–
1570 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 4–6, 51–2; James
Carley, The Books of King Henry VIII and his Wives (London: The British
Library, 2004), pp. 108, 110, 120, 124–125, 134–136, 138; Suzanne
Hull, Chaste. Silent & Obedient: English Books for Women, 1475–1640
(San Marino: Huntington Library, 1982), pp. 221–222.
10.  LP, I, 678; Maria Hayward, ed. The Great Wardrobe Accounts of Henry
VII and Henry VIII (London: London Record Society, Boydell Press,
2012), pp. 109, 203, 205, 223, 224; Society of Antiquaries,“Articles
Ordained by King Henry VII For the Regulation of his Household,”A
Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Government of the Royal
Household, Made in Divers Reigns from King Edward III to King William
and Queen Mary (London: John Nichols for the Society of Antiquaries,
1790), pp. 116, 125; Kay Staniland, “Royal Entry into the World,”
England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxton
Society, ed. Daniel Williams (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987), p. 299,
discovered that the “Articles” have been incorrectly misdated as 1494
and that the countess of Richmond, did not write them. For more infor-
mation about them, see Chap. 6. See also Fiona Kisby, “Kingship and the
Royal Itinerary: A Study of the Peripatetic Household of the Early Tudor
Kings,” Court Historian, 4 (1998), 29–39 and “‘When the King Goeth
in Procession,”’ p. 60.
11. Hayward, Great Wardrobe, pp. 36, 234, 284, for example. Nicolas,
Privy Purse Elizabeth, p. 1; For the origins of the maundy and a discus-
sion of the participation in this service of Henry Algernon Percy, fifth
earl of Northumberland, and his family, see William Charlton, “Maundy
Thursday Observances and the Royal Maundy Money,” Lancashire and
Cheshire Antiquarian Society, 34 (1916), 201–220, in which he specifies
that the number of poor was to equal the age of the washer at his/her
next birthday.
12. T.N.A. E 101/423/12, f. 6d; James, Kateryn, p. 14, footnote 15, dis-
puted this reading of the number of women. She denied that Dakota
126  R.M. WARNICKE

Lee Hamilton, “The Household of Katherine Parr,” unpublished D. Phil

thesis, 1992, who also read XXXI women in this manuscript was correct
and insisted that it reads XXI women. None of Henry’s wives, as far as
we know, was 21 especially not Katherine Parr, when she was queen of
England. Further evidence of Henry VIII’s maundy supports this usage
of the future age. In 1511, Easter fell on 13 March. He was born in June
1491, but the record states 21 poor men participated. In March 1532,
the record indicates 42 poor men. See LP, I, 717, V, 863.
13. LP, VII, 469, VIII, 428, 435; Timothy Elston, “Widow Princess or
Neglected Queen: Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII, and English Public
Opinion, 1533–1536,” Queens & Power in Medieval and Early Modern
England, ed Carole Levin and Robert Bucholz (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 2009), pp. 16–30; for Anne, see T.N.A. SP 1/103, f.
203.
14. T.N.A. E 101/422/15.
15. T.N.A. SP 1/167 ff. 153, 157–159; John Nichols, The Progresses and
Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. Among Which Are Interspersed
Other Solemnities, Public Expenditures, and Remarkable Events During
the Reign of That Illustrious Princess. New edition, 3 vols. (New York,
B. Franklin, 1965), I, 325–326 for descriptions of Elizabeth’s maundy.
See also, Retha M. Warnicke, William Lambarde: Elizabethan Antiquary
(London: Philimore, 1973), p. 40 and for other descriptions, see BL Add
MS. 6183, f. 73 and Add MS. 32,097, fs. 2, 70. For Katherine Howard’s
almoner, LP, XVI, 1331, 1366, 1489, King’s Payments, 1541, fs. 174,
183.
16. Audrey Eccles, Obstetrics and Gynecology in Tudor and Stuart England
(Kent: Kent State University, 1982), p. 36; Patricia Crawford, “Sexual
Knowledge in England, 1500–1750,” Sexual Knowledge, Sexual
Science: The History of Attitudes to Sexuality, ed. R. Porter and M.
Teich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 82–106:
Mary Anne Cline Horowitz, “The ‘Science’ of Embryology, Before the
Discovery of the Ovum,” Connecting Spheres: Women in the Western
World, 1500 to the Present, ed. Marilyn Boxer and Jean Quataert (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 86; Kim Phillips and Barry Reay,
Sex Before Sexuality: A Premodern History (Cambridge: Polity, 2011), pp.
6, 9, 31, 59; Jean Ferrante, Women as Image in Medieval Literature From
the Twelfth Century to Dante (New York; Columbia University Press,
1975), p. 2; Judith Lewis, In the Family Way: Childbearing in the British
Aristocracy, 1760–1860 (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1986), p. 133.
17. Pierre Payer, Sex and the Penitentials: The Development of a Sexual Code,
550–1150 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), pp. 127–128;
John Robinson, Observations Divine and Morall for the Furtherance of
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  127

Knowledge and Virtue, second edition (Amsterdam: Successor of Gileo

Thoorp, 1625), p. 303; Geoffrey Parker, Philip II (Boston: Little Brown,
1978), p. 18.
18. William Harrington, In This Book Are Commendations of Matrimony
With the Declaration of All Impediments (London: J. Skot, 1528), sig.
Ciiii-Cviii, Di, Dviii; Mircea Eliade, Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The
Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth, trans. W. Trask (New York: Harper &
Row, 1975), p. 25; Patricia Crawford, “The Suckling Child,’ Adult
Attitudes to Child Care in the First Year of Life in Seventeenth Century
England,” Continuity and Change 1(1986), 27; Roy Porter, “‘The
Secrets of Generation Display’d,’ Aristotle’s Master-Piece in Eighteenth
Century England,” ‘Tis Nature’s Fault: Unauthorized Sexuality During
the Englightenment, ed. Robert MacCubbin (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987), p. 11; Chilton Powell, English Domestic Relations,
1487–1653 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1917), p. 6, n. 1.
19. LP, I, 473.
20. Historical Manuscripts Commission. The Manuscripts of His Grace, the
Duke of Portland, Preserved at Welbeck Abbey, 9 vols. (London: HMSO,
1891–1905), III, 4.
21. Eccles, Obstetrics, p. 35; Pierre Boaistuau, Certaine Secrete Wonders of
Nature Containing a Descriptio[n] of Sundry Strange things, Seming
Monstrous in Our Eyes and Judgement, Bicause We Are Not Priuie to
the Reasons of Them, trans. E. Fenton, second edition (London: Henry
Bynneman, 1569), pp. 13, 16; LP, II, 4279; Scottish Record Office,
Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Henry
VII, 1485–1509, 2 vols. Prepared under the superintendence of Deputy
Keeper of the Public Records (Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint,
1970) II, 289 (hereafter CPR); Great Britain. Record Commission. State
Papers of Henry VIII, 11 vols. (London: HMSO, 1830–1832), I, 551.
22. Madeleine Cosman, Medieval Holidays and Festivals: A Calendar of
Celebrations (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1981), p. 35; Joan
Thirsk, “The Fashioning of the Tudor-Stuart Gentry,” Bulletin of the John
Rylands University Library of Manchester, 72 (1990), 70; Muriel St. Clare
Byrne, ed., The Lisle Letters, 6 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1981), II, no. 227, IV, no. 956.
23. Scottish Record Office, Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers,
Relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain: Preserved
in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere, ed. G.A. Bergenroth, P. De
Gayangos, G. Mattingly, M.A.S. Hume, and R. Taylor. 13 vols., 2 sup-
plements, (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1862–1964),
I, 239; (hereafter CSP Span.) Scottish Record Office, Calendar of State
Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the
128  R.M. WARNICKE

Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other libraries of Northern Italy.

ed. R. Brown, G. Cavendish-Bentinck, H.F. Brown, 38 vols. (London:
HMSO, 1864–1947), I, 833; T.N.A. E 404/79, f. 98(also numbered
375). For the prohibitions, see J. Charles Cox, The Parish Records of
England (Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1974), pp. 81–82.
24. Jean Kaulek, ed., Correspondance Politque de M.M. De Castillon et
Marillac, Ambassadeurs de France in Angleterre, 1537–1542 (Paris: Felix
Alcan, 1885), p. 247; LP, IV, 4486; Henry Jenkyns, ed., The Remains of
Thomas Cranmer, D.D. Archbishop of Canterbury, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1833), I, 307–310.
25. LP, IV, 1939, XV, 823, XX–ii, Appendix 2(x), XXI–I, 1315; “Ordinances,”
pp. 144, 158.
26. LP, II, 2429, 3455, IV, 3105, V, 238, 614, X, 699.
27. LP, XV, 541, XVIII-ii, 516.
28. LP, III, 2555, VIII, 174, XI, 501; “Ordinances” p. 144.
29. Scottish Record Office, Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts,
Existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan. Published by the
Authority of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury Under
the Direction of the Master of the Rolls (London: HMSO, 1921), 552.
30. Simon Thurley, The Royal Palaces of Tudor England: Architecture and
Court Life, 1460–1547 (New Haven: For The Paul Mellon Center for
Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 1993), pp. 140, 235–239;
“Articles,” p. 122.
31. LP, I, 880, II, 4074, 4288, XII–ii, 22, 41; Byrne, Lisle Letters, II, no.
175; Angus McLaren, Reproductive Rituals: The Perception of Fertility in
England From the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth Century (London:
Methuen, 1984), p. 47; Maria Hayward, ed., Dress at the Court of King
Henry VIII (London: Maney, 2007), p. 167. For speculations about the
cause of the death of Henry VIII’s infants, see Kyra Kramer, “A New
Explanation for the Reproductive Woes and Midlife Decline of Henry
VIII,” Historical Journal, 53(2010), 827–848.
32. See endnote 10 for the dating of the “Articles,” p. 125; Thurley, Royal
Palaces, p. 140; Sydney Anglo, “The British History in Early Tudor
Propaganda,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester,
44(1961–1962), 17–48, points out that the Tudors did not greatly
emphasize their Welsh origins after Arthur’s birth. See also, Christopher
Dean, Arthur of England: English Attitudes to King Arthur and the
Knights of the Round Table in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), pp. 8–28.
33. “Articles,” p. 125; Jean Donnison, Midwives and Medical Men: A History
of Inter-Professional Rivalries and Women’s Rights (New York: Schocken
Books, 1977), pp. 1–3; David Cressy, Birth, Marriage and Death: Ritual,
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  129

Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 50–54.
34. “Articles,” p. 125; John Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii de rebus
Britannicis collectanea, ed. Thomas Hearne 6 vols. (London: William and
John Richardson, 1770), IV, 249; William Campbell, ed., Materials for a
History of the Reign of Henry VII from Original Documents Preserved in
the Public Record Office, 2 vols. (NewYork: Kraus Reprint, 1965), II, 65,
84; CPR, II, 354; Henry Bull, Christian Praiers and Holie Meditations
as Wel for Private and Publique Exercise, second edition (London: Henry
Middleton, 1570), pp. 284–286. See also, Christopher Hooke, The
Child-birth or Woman’s Lecture (London: Thomas Orwin, 1590); for the
girdle see Arlene Naylor Okerlund, Elizabeth of York (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2009), p. 202; J.F. Merritt, The Social World of Early Modern
Westminster Abbey (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), p.
34; although Elizabeth’s final child, named Katherine, born unexpectedly
at the Tower of London, lived only a few days, she was christened at the
Tower’s parish church. See Charles Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London
(Dursley: Alan Sutton, 1977), p. 258.
35. BL Harleian MS. 283, f. 155; for letters concerning Henry VIII’s two
surviving daughters, see LP, II, 1556, VI, 1089.
36. “Articles,” pp. 126–127; Maria Hayward, Rich Apparel: Clothing and
the Law in Henry VIII’s England (Burlington: Ashgate, 2009), p. 386
for chrism. See also, Louis Hass, “Social Connections Between Parents
and Godparents in Late Medieval Yorkshire,” Medieval Prosography,
10(spring, 1989), 1–21; for Mary’s christening, see LP, II, 1573.
37. Francis Grose and Thomas Astle, eds. The Antiquarian Repertory. 4 vols.
(London: Edward Jeffrey, 1807–1809), I, 353–357. Leland, Joannis
Lelandi antiquarii, IV, 204–207; James Gairdner, ed. Three Fifteenth
Century Chronicles with Historical Memoranda by John Stowe (London:
Camden Society, 1858), 104–105. For Margaret’s and Edward’s christen-
ing, see Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, II, 670–678; IV, 253–254.
For the chantry, see Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, p. lxix.
38. LP, I, 670–671, 698–699,VI, 1111, XII-ii, 911. No evidence exists that
Henry VII held tournaments to celebrate the birth of Arthur or the
future Henry VIII.
39. “Articles,” pp. 126–127, which have a more detailed description of the
royal nursery; David Hunt, Parents and Children in History: The Psychology
of Family Life in Early Modern France (New York: Basic Books, 1976),
p. 127; Howard Haggard, Devils, Drugs, and Doctors, second edition,
(Evanston: Pocket Books, 1954), p. 59; Phillis Cunnington and Catherine
Lucas, Costumes for Births, Marriages, and Deaths (London: Adams and
Charles Black, 1972), pp. 28–31, has an illustration of a swaddled infant.
130  R.M. WARNICKE

40.  Thomas Hollingsworth, “Demographic Study of the British Ducal

Families,” Population Studies, 11 (1957), 4–26; Roger Schofield and E.A.
Wrigley, “Infant and Child Mortality in the Late Tudor and Early Stuart
Period,” Health, Medicine, and Mortality in the Sixteenth Century, ed.
C. Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 61–95;
Ralph Houlbrooke, Death, Religion, and the Family in England (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 7–8
41.  Roger Schofield, “Did the Mothers Really Die? Three Centuries of
Maternal Mortality in the World We Have Gained,” The World We Have
Gained: History of Population and Social Structure, ed. Lloyd Bonfield,
Richard Smith, Keith Wrightson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 231–
260; B.M. Wilmot Dobie, “An Attempt to Estimate the True Rate of
Maternal Mortality, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,” Medical History,
26 (l982), 79–90, for the information on midwives. See Barrett Beer,
“Jane née Seymour (1508–1509–1537) queen of England, third con-
sort of Henry VIII,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter
ODNB), www.oxforddnb.com (accessed July 24, 2015) for the specula-
tion about Jane’s death.
42. Nicholas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, p. lxxxiv; Ernest Rhys, ed., The First and
Second Prayer Books of Edward VI (London: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1920),
pp. 278–279. CSP Span, XIII, 178; see Cunnington and Lucas, Costume
for Births, Marriages, & Deaths, pp. 18–19 and Grose, Antiquarian, I,
356 for Elizabeth of York’s churching; Cox, Parish Registers, 59, for the
chrism. For Elizabeth of Woodville’s churching, see Malcolm Letts, ed.
and trans., The Travels of Leo of Rozmital through Germany, Flanders,
England, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, 1465–1467 (London:
Published for the Hakluyt Society by Cambridge University Press,
1957), p. 46; Gail McMurray Gibson, “Blessing from Sun and Moon:
Churching as Women’s Theater,” Bodies and Disciplines: Intersections
of Literature and History in Fifteenth-Century England,” ed. Barbara
Hanawalt and David Wallace, Medieval Cultures, no. 9 (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1996), pp. 139–154.
43. A discussion of Chapuys can be found in Retha M. Warnicke, The Rise
and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 171–174. For
Katherine Parr’s financial support of her stepdaughter while queen, see
T.N.A. E 315/161, f. 112.
44. CPR, II, 289; for the Book of Hours, see J.G.J. Alexander, “Painting and
Manuscript Illumination for Royal Patrons in the Later Middle Ages,”
English Court Culture in the Later Middle Ages, ed. V.J. Sattergood and
J.W. Sherborne (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1983), p. 154; State Papers
Henry VIII, I, 426. See also Bartholomew Batty, The Christian Man’s
 4  RELIGION AND FAMILY LIFE  131

Closet, Wherein is Conteined a Large Discourse of the Godly Training up of

Children, trans. William Loweth (London: Thomas Dawson and Gregory
Leton, 1581), pp. 18, 56. For insights into the childhood and eating
habits of the future Edward VI, see LP Addenda, 1535, 1636.
45. Hayward, Rich Apparel, p. 386; Anne Buck, Clothes and the Child: A
Handbook of Children’s Dress in England, 1500–1900 (Carlton: Ruth Bean,
1996), pp. 150–152; Roy Brook, The Story of Eltham Palace (London:
George Harrap & Co., 1960), p. 33; CPR, I, 152–153, II, 126.
46. Okerlund, Elizabeth of York, pp. 9–12; Erin Sadlack, The French Queen’s
Letters: Mary Tudor Brandon and the Politics of Marriage in Sixteenth
Century Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 21; Nicolas,
Privy Purse Elizabeth, pp. 1, 10, 28, 43, 48, 52, 54, 66.
47. Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, p. 2.
48. Ibid. pp. 10, 22, 23, 29, 33, 38, 86, 88, 93.
49. Rosemary Horrox, “Arthur, prince of Wales,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.
com (accessed August 8, 2015); J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1968), pp. 5–6, 14–16; Lucy Wooding,
Henry VIII (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 22–23. For the importation
of humanist education into England, see Aysha Pollnitz, “Humanism
and Court Culture in the Education of Tudor Royal Children,” Tudor
Court Culture, ed. Thomas Betteridge and Anna Riehl (Selinsgrove:
Susequehanna University Press, 2010), pp. 42–59.
50. Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, IV, 250–253; CPR, I, 220, 236, 257,
296, 305, 311–312, 407, 438, 441, 481, 488–489, for examples; see also
Steven Gunn and Linda Moreton, eds., Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales:
Life, Death & Commemoration (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009), p. 2
51. CPR, I, 423, II, 26, 62, 64, 67, 200, 303.
52. Aysha Pollnitz, “Christian Women or Sovereign Queens? The Schooling
of Mary and Elizabeth,” Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and
Elizabeth, ed. Alice Hunt and Anna Whitelock (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2010), pp. 127–142. For Linacre’s grammar, see Vivian
Nutton, “Linacre, Thomas (c.1460–1524), humanist scholar and physi-
cian,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed March 16, 2016). For Juan
Luis Vives and the dedications, see Valerie Schutte, Mary I and the Art
of Book Dedications: Royal Women, Power, and Persuasion (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), pp. 20–21; Timothy Elston, “Transformation
or Continuity and the Legacy of Catherine of Aragon, Mary I, and
Juan Luis Vives,” ‘High and Mighty Queens’ of Early Modern England,
pp. 11–26.
53. J.L. McIntosh, “A Culture of Reverence: Princess Mary’s Household,
1525–1527,” Tudor Queenship, pp. 113–126. See also BL Harleian,
6807, f. 3.
132  R.M. WARNICKE

54. William Loke, “An Account of Materials Furnished for the Use of Queen
Anne Boleyn and the Princess Elizabeth,” ed. J.B. Heath, Miscellanies
of the Philobiblon Society, VIII(1862–1863), 1–22; John Bruce and
Thomas Perowne, ed., Correspondence of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of
Canterbury, Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1853), pp. 59, 70, 391.
55. John Edwards, Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2011), p. 49.
56. Aysha Pollnitz, “Religion and Translation at the Court of Henry VIII:
Princess Mary, Katherine Parr, and the Paraphrases of Erasmus,” Mary
Tudor: Old and New Perspectives, ed. Susan Doran and Thomas Freeman
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 123–137.
57. Janel Mueller and Joshua Scodell, eds., Elizabeth I: Translations, 1544–
1589 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), pp. 2–3, 40–287;
Wallace MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I (London: Edward Arnold, 1991), p. 6.
58. Janel Mueller, ed., Katherine Parr: Complete Works & Correspondence
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 121–122, 125–126,
424 n. 4.
59. Rosemary Horrox, “Cecily, viscountess Welles (1469–1507), prin-
cess, ODNB www.oxforddnb.com (accessed August 4, 2015); Michael
A.R. Graves, “Anne Lady Howard (1475–1511), princess,” ODNB
www.oxforddnb.com (accessed August 4, 2015); Margaret. Westcott,
“Katherine, countess of Devon (1479–1527), princess,” ODNB www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed August 4, 2015). There are many entries to
the Courtenays in Nicolas, Privy Purse Elizabeth, for example, pp. 32,
63, 69–70, 75–76, 99 concerning the purchase of clothes for them, the
purchase of horse meat, the payment of servants and other expenses.
For Bridget, see pp. 29, 50, 99; R. S. Thomas, “Tudor, Jasper [Jasper of
Hatfield], duke of Bedford ©. 1431–1495,” ODNB www.oxforddnb.com
(accessed August 4, 2015).
60. LP, Addenda, 746, 1593; Warnicke, Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn, pp. 82,
148.
61. Hamilton, “Household of Katherine Parr,” p. 128; Retha M. Warnicke,
Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, Commoners (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), pp. 64–65, 73, Narasingham Sil,
“Herbert, William, first earl of Pembroke (1506/1507–1570), soldier
and magnate,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed August 4, 2015).
62. Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii, V, 373–374.
63. Edward Hall, Henry VIII, intro. Charles Whibley, 2 vols. (London:
T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904), I, 27; Garrett Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon
(Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1941), 142–143.
 CHAPTER 5

Governance and Patronage

At the center of royal power, albeit subordinate to kings and needing

to deal with court bureaucracies, queens performed significant politi-
cal roles; how each one fulfilled her duties depended, of course, on her
education, previous experiences, and personality. After examining the
emergence of resident ambassadorships, this chapter reinterprets some
negative diplomatic comments about Elizabeth of York and Anne Boleyn
that historians have cited as evidence for the nature of their queenships.
It then turns to Katherine of Aragon’s service as her father’s resident
in England and reviews the role of queens in their daughters’ marriage
negotiations. Finally, it highlights some of their other political duties:
Katherine of Aragon’s and Katherine Parr’s appointment as Henry VIII’s
regents; the queens’ traditional intercessory roles; and Katherine of
Aragon’s, Anne Boleyn’s, and Katherine Parr’s attitudes toward religious
reform and influence on episcopal patronage.
At first, when medieval rulers communicated with each other, they
appointed ad hoc ambassadors for specific, short-term missions, but
by the mid-fifteenth century, Italian city-states had begun exchanging
resident ambassadors, whose appointments lasted for extended periods.
This new procedure slowly spread across Europe; Henry VII, for exam-
ple, appointed John Stile as the first English resident to Spain in 1505.
These officials’ dispatches prove that they spent much of their time col-
lecting intelligence from spies and bribed officials. Indeed, when one of
their rulers’ daughters married a foreign prince, the resident in his realm
expected assistance in his duties from her and her servants. In 1510,

© The Author(s) 2017 133

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_5
134  R.M. Warnicke

for example, Luis Caroz, the Spanish resident in England, complained

about the influence of Diego Fernandez, a Franciscan Observant friar,
over Katherine of Aragon. The friar had, Caroz informed his govern-
ment, caused her to expel Francesca de Cáceres from her household.
To resolve his dilemma, Caroz hoped that Ferdinand would commu-
nicate with both Katherine and Henry VIII, requesting that either she
reemploy her servant or that the king appoint her to his sister Mary’s
household. Since Cáceres had been forwarding to Caroz sensitive infor-
mation about the court, he wanted her return so that she could con-
tinue that invaluable service. Ferdinand decided that she should be
placed with Mary, but the unwilling Cáceres ultimately returned to
Spain.1
As residents had to represent their rulers’ views while maintain-
ing civil relationships with host officials, sometimes the news that they
forwarded home seems misleading and difficult to interpret. Jocelyne
Russell noted that their dispatches contain a “whirlpool of information,
misinformation and… disinformation.”2 Despite the unlikelihood of the
archives ever literally just providing “the facts,” scholars have too often
validated the residents’ intelligence without considering the cultural and
social context in which it was written.3 Robert Shephard has determined
that their opinions reflected “people’s underlying anxieties” and “most
deeply held assumptions” that were “shaped by their particular historical
circumstances.” Ultimately, the documents offer deeper insights into cul-
tural and social attitudes than valid information about the people under
­scrutiny.4
Some misstatements are obvious: Dominico Rar of Milan reported
from London on September 10, 1492, that Henry, who declared war
against France, had led his army across the Channel, but the king had
not yet left Canterbury; in 1519, the erroneous news spread across
Europe that Mary, the 3-year-old child of Katherine and Henry VIII,
had died; some 20 years later, Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial resident in
England, repeated rumors that Henry would take back Anne of Cleves,
but the king’s impotence with her, about which only a few advisers knew,
meant that he would not remarry her. The more astute French resident,
Charles de Marillac, who disbelieved the gossip, described Chapuys as so
incompetent that his government should recall him.5
The intelligence that they gleaned from bribed individuals could
sometimes prove to be invalid. In 1608, Sir Henry Wotton, the resident
at Venice, admitted that he had purchased false information.6 Rulers
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  135

retaliated against this expected espionage, for example, confiscating their

ciphered dispatches and concealing spies in their embassies. Stephen
Vaughan, stationed in Brussels, informed Sir Thomas Cromwell about
Chapuys’s visit there and assured him that he “was wily enough” for the
diplomat, who “could get nothing at my hand.”7
The residents’ reports about their audiences with host officials prob-
ably contained fairly reliable information, which nevertheless could
also prove to be invalid. In 1536, for example, Chapuys forwarded the
incredible admission of Cromwell, Henry VIII’s vicegerent for spiritual
matters, that he opposed the dissolution of the monasteries. Obviously
Chapuys’s informants sometimes gave him misleading information in
attempts to win his trust, hoping that he might respond with some sensi-
tive information about his government to them in addition to forward-
ing to his correspondents the invalid news he had just learned.8 Another
of the residents’ difficulties involved the frequent decision of their coun-
trymen to withhold sensitive intelligence from them because of concerns
that they might inadvertently disclose it to host officials. Diplomats as
well as courtiers had “to watch every word” spoken.9 Finally, foreign-
ers in England sometimes misunderstood the news that they obtained
because they mostly did not know the native tongue and had to commu-
nicate in Italian, French, or Latin.
Whether ad hoc or resident, the diplomats’ views of the royal
women varied greatly. Sometimes after their initial meetings with the
king and his councilors, ad hoc ambassadors went to greet the queen.
In September 1497, two Italian ad hoc diplomats gained access to
Elizabeth of York and her ladies. Afterward, Raimundo de Soncino of
Milan reported home that he had given her a letter of credence but did
not mention the presence of the king’s mother. His companion, Andrea
Trevisan of Venice, wrote more specifically that he had met the queen,
who was dressed in cloth of gold, standing between the king’s mother
and the prince. After he greeted her in Italian, Thomas Kempe, bishop of
London, responded for her. When Trevisan later departed for home, he
noted that he had taken leave only of the king and queen.10
Neither of these two ad hoc Italian ambassadors nor the Spanish
diplomat, Rodrigo Gonzales de Puebla, who accompanied Juan de
Sepulveda on an ad hoc mission to England from 1488 to 1490 and
then returned as the resident from 1495 to 1508, ever referred, even
generally, to the queen’s relationship with the king’s mother. In 1488,
Puebla revealed that after he and Sepulveda had viewed the prince naked,
136  R.M. Warnicke

they greeted at an “unexpected hour” only the queen and her 32 com-
panions of “angelical appearance.”11
Nevertheless, many historians have validated the negative com-
ments made about Elizabeth’s relationship to her mother-in-law by
three Spanish diplomats: Don Pedro de Ayala, resident to Scotland
who moved to England in 1496 to negotiate the youthful Margaret
Tudor’s marriage to James IV; and two ad hoc ambassadors, Johannes
de Matienson, subprior of Santa Cruz, and Sancho de Londoño, who
remained in London only 13 days, from July 2 to 15, 1498. It is impor-
tant to note in interpreting their subsequent written statements that the
Spanish resident to Scotland and the two ad hoc diplomats failed to note
that they had ever had the opportunity personally to meet with either
the queen or her mother-in-law. On July 18, after departing for home,
the two ad hoc ambassadors sent a letter to Ferdinand of Aragon and
Isabella of Castile in which they identified the persons who had the
most influence over the king, including, among others, his mother and
John Morton, cardinal archbishop of Canterbury. In Matienson’s sepa-
rate message to them written that same day, he explained that the king’s
mother kept Elizabeth, who was otherwise much “beloved,” in subjec-
tion. He recommended that their majesties write to her and “show her a
little love.” In the two ad hoc diplomat’s earlier combined dispatch, cited
above, they credited Ayala for assisting them with completing their nego-
tiations and with learning about Scottish and English affairs. On July 25,
7 days later, Ayala himself informed their majesties that Elizabeth was
“beloved” because she was “powerless,” that the king’s mother had great
influence over the king, and that his wife, “as is generally the case, does
not like it.” Other important Englishmen he named were the bishop of
Durham, the lord privy seal, and the lord chamberlain, but he omitted
Cardinal Morton. That Ayala obviously seemed unaware that Richard
Foxe held both the positions of bishop of Durham (1494–1501) and
lord privy seal (1487–1516) casts grave doubts on his intimate knowl-
edge of the church and court. Finally, he reported that Henry kept the
people in “subjection, as never happened before.”12
Since these three Spanish diplomats recorded a hostile relationship
between the king’s mother and wife, it is useful to review Elizabeth’s
diplomatic activities. In December 1489, after winning at Baca, Granada,
Ferdinand sent a message to her about his victory over the Moors, per-
haps because of the recent ratification of the marriage treaty between
their children, Katherine and Arthur. Pleased about that treaty and their
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  137

betrothal, Elizabeth communicated with Isabella in 1498, suggesting

that they exchange letters with each other with news about their chil-
dren. Two years later, Elizabeth sent a letter to Ferdinand that supported
Henry’s earlier request that the Spanish king grant John Stile permission
to fight the infidel.13 Probably the king’s mother did not correspond
with the Spanish monarchs; at least, no such letters have survived.
In addition, Elizabeth, at least once in her mother-in-law’s presence,
had various encounters with Puebla. Both Henry and she tried to assist
him in reducing the huge debt that he had accumulated. In February
1498, after Puebla declined a church office that Henry offered him, the
king suggested an honorable marriage with one of his subjects. Henry
later informed the Spanish monarchs that his queen had not only joined
him in trying to convince their resident to agree to the marriage, which
he ultimately declined, but also that she had served as the major per-
suader. Puebla himself informed one of Ferdinand’s councilors that both
the king and queen had spoken to him for a long time about the mar-
riage and his personal affairs. In July 1498, without clarifying whether he
had obtained the information directly from them or indirectly through
Henry, Puebla revealed that the king’s wife and mother had two wishes:
they hoped that Katherine would speak French with Margaret of Austria,
widow of the Spanish heir, John, prince of Asturias, so that they could
converse with her after she arrived in England, as they could not speak
Spanish or Latin; and that she would learn to drink wine because English
water was undrinkable. Later, after a 4-hour conversation with Henry in
the presence of the king’s wife and his mother, Puebla revealed to their
Spanish majesties that after he had given Elizabeth two letters from
them and two others from the princess of Wales, Henry and Elizabeth
had been involved in a disagreement. Elizabeth refused Henry’s request
for one of the princess’s letters because she wanted to keep it for herself
since she had already forwarded the other one to Arthur. This sounds
like a staged dispute to emphasize the significance to Puebla of the
Spanish marriage. About the king’s mother, Puebla noted only that she
witnessed the scene. In fact, he never once even hinted that she kept
Elizabeth in subjection. In August 1498, Puebla reported to their majes-
ties that when he had delivered their most recent letter and one from the
princess to the queen, “the most distinguished and most noble lady in
the whole of England,” she had summoned her Latin secretary to reply
to Isabella and her daughter. Afterward, Puebla learned from that sec-
retary that the queen had required him to rewrite the two letters some
138  R.M. Warnicke

three or four times because of mistakes that she found in them. Finally,
between May 8 and June 16, 1500, when Henry and Elizabeth, unac-
companied by his mother, resided at Calais to escape the plague in
England, Puebla heard that they had met there with Philip, archduke
of Austria and husband of Juana, future queen of Castile. He revealed
also that he had earlier learned from Henry and Elizabeth that they
wished that the ladies, who might be chosen to accompany the princess
to England, would be of gentle birth and beautiful, or at least not ugly.
Apparently their ladies’ appearance seems to have been an important
standard for judging early modern courts. In 1520, for example, after Sir
Richard Wingfield, the resident in France, informed Henry VIII that in
preparing for their attendance at the Field of Cloth of Gold the French
had searched for their fairest ladies, he said that he hoped his own queen
would “bring such in her land that the visage of England, which hath
always had the prize, be not lost.”14
Perhaps the traditional expectation of inevitable tensions between
mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law helped to shape Ayala’s opin-
ion about the relationship of the king’s wife and mother that he surely
passed on to the ad hoc ambassadors. They in turn, when reporting on
their findings, praised Ayala and criticized Puebla, even repeating an old
rumor that the queen and her mother, who had died in 1492, had ridi-
culed him for dining at court so frequently. Ayala himself seems to have
been envious of the royal couple’s attentions to Puebla and learned of
their attempts to aid him. Some comments in his dispatches question
whether Puebla, who often complained about his countryman’s failure
to return on his mission to Scotland, actually worked for their Spanish
majesties or for Henry.15
Since Ferdinand expected Ayala to advance the Anglo-Scottish mar-
riage, the diplomat reacted with disbelief when learning from Henry that
his wife and his mother believed that at the age of nine Margaret was
too young to be betrothed and dispatched to Scotland, because James IV
might prematurely “injure her and endanger her health.” Some facts that
Henry had emphasized, perhaps information about his mother’s mar-
riage to Edmund, earl of Richmond, in 1455, when she was about 12,
and the birth of him, their son, in January 1457 before her fourteenth
birthday in May, might have convinced the ambassador that she played a
more forceful role than Elizabeth in opposing an immediate wedding for
her youthful grandchild, who was also her godchild. Ayala remained in
England for four more years, until 1502, but never again referred to the
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  139

relationship of the king’s wife and his mother, perhaps because Henry
and James continued to discuss seriously the marriage treaty.16
The dispatches of the Imperial and French agents concerning Anne
Boleyn’s misfortunes in 1536 are almost as contradictory as are the let-
ters of the Spanish diplomats about Elizabeth of York’s queenship.
In 1972, E. W. Ives, relying on the dispatches of Chapuys, an avowed
enemy of Anne, claimed that Cromwell deserted her reformed fac-
tion and took charge of a conservative faction against her because she
opposed his diplomatic policies.17 In his 2004 biography, Ives added that
Cromwell also moved against her because of her negative views about
the dissolution of the monasteries.18
Meanwhile, in articles published in the 1990s, G. W. Bernard, who
expressed concerns that the factional theory had denied Henry mastery
of his court, concluded that Anne had committed adultery with the five
accused men who subsequently suffered execution. Bernard further won-
dered why Cromwell had confided only in Chapuys and no other ambas-
sador.19 Later, in his 2009 book, Bernard cited a poem by Lancelot de
Carle, secretary to the French resident, Antoine de Castelnau, bishop of
Tarbes. Having just arrived in England that spring, Carle had little time
to unearth sensitive information about the court. Indeed, in the poem,
completed in June 1536, Carle admitted only that he had versified the
rumors circulating about Anne and her alleged lovers. In his book,
Bernard amended his earlier assessments about the men’s guilt, claiming
the poet was right about Mark Smeaton, Henry Norris, and Sir Francis
Weston but incorrect about Anne’s brother, George, Viscount Rochford,
and William Brereton.20
A more scholarly approach to discussing these events is to acknowl-
edge that the poet lacked inside information about the court and that
Henry’s councilors, especially Cromwell, deliberately fed falsehoods to
Chapuys. In fact, almost nothing in Chapuys’s 1536 dispatches written
before April can be corroborated except that Jane Seymour attracted
Henry’s attention at Greenwich and that Anne miscarried there. In
modern accounts, scholars have not adopted a consistent methodology
for interpreting Chapuys’ gossipy statements, partly because corrobora-
tive evidence concerning the events at court is not extant. His report,
for example, that Anne’s miscarriage possibly resulted from her having
heard about the heavy fall of both the king and his horse while jousting
on January 24, a day of the month that is usually identified as the eve
of the third anniversary of their royal marriage, has not won widespread
140  R.M. Warnicke

acceptance, perhaps because Chapuys also asserted that she did not
deliver the fetus until 5 days later, on January 29. Most experts also do
not, unlike early modern people, believe that a clear link exists between
frights and miscarriages. The king himself, however, validated this folk-
lore, when, as noted in Chap. 4, he worried that the pregnant Jane
might miscarry if she took “a fright at some sudden displeasant rumors
and bruits.”21
Even so, it is also interesting that modern studies almost unani-
mously credit the rumor that the 44-year-old king fell while compet-
ing in a tournament even though none of his contemporaries reported
having witnessed a Greenwich competition in January 1536. Charles
Wriothesley, the Windsor herald, who resided in London, referred to the
fall in a vague way: “It was said she took a fright, for the king ran that
time at the ring and had a fall from his horse, but he had no hurt; and
she took such a fright withal that it caused her to fall in travail.” He also
dated the miscarriage the third day before the feast of Candlemas Day,
surely January 30. That he introduced the incident as “it was said” and
gave no specific date for it means that he did not witness the fall; he also
provided somewhat different details than those that Chapuys had heard
at his London embassy. As noted above, Chapuys claimed that both
the king and his horse took a heavy fall; indicated a different war game,
jousting; and placed her miscarriage on January 29, a date revealed to
him by Cromwell. It is interesting, given the importance of coinciding
dates in early modern Europe, that the days Chapuys gave for the king’s
fall and her miscarriage placed his accident on the eve of their likely third
wedding anniversary and her tragedy on the day of Katherine’s funeral.22
Equally interesting is the information in Edward Hall’s chronicle,
which Peter Herman determined was to a large extent based on other
written sources. In fact, from the mid-1530s, Hall left only notes and
documents that his printer, Richard Grafton, drew together to complete
his narrative, and to which the printer might have added some mate-
rial. The chronicle not only dates Anne’s miscarriage in early February
but it also lacks information about the king’s fall. The last competition
in which it reports that Henry performed occurred on March 5, 1527,
when he was 35 years old. Nine years later, in January 1536, the chroni-
cle identifies no war game, either jousting or running at the ring. Since
both Hall, a member of the Reformation Parliament, and Grafton lived
in London, it seems odd that they would not have heard any rumors
about the king’s accident. It also seems improbable that Henry could
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  141

have taken such a heavy fall without someone like an agent of Arthur
Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, who nosed around the court at Greenwich,
mentioning it. After May 1540, Henry appeared to have lost inter-
est even in observing the competitions, perhaps because of his age and
health. Indeed, as early as April 1532, he had begun to consider his
aging status. At that time, he informed Parliament, “For I am… 41 years
old, at which age the lust of man is not so quick, as in lusty youth.”
As will be explained in Chap. 7, many early modern individuals believed
that sometime in their forties, they had reached old age.23 It is therefore
unlikely that the king participated in a tournament in 1536. If so, what
other falsehoods might scholars someday find in Chapuys’ dispatches?
Cromwell probably revealed a plot against Anne to Chapuys because
he wished to discover what he knew about the miscarriage. Almost daily,
Chapuys corresponded with Mary, who lived in the household of her
half-sister, Elizabeth, whose governess was Anne Shelton, the queen’s
paternal aunt. Before February 17, Mary, who corresponded with him
frequently, was probably the informant who alerted him that her gov-
erness and her relatives had interrogated one of Mary’s most “familiar”
maids as to what she knew about the miscarriage.24 It is also important
to note that while Chapuys seems to have validated Cromwell’s claim of
having political differences with Anne, the ambassador still believed that
she was guilty, calling her a putain (whore) as well as a concubine, and
blaming her, not the king, for Katherine’s marital troubles.25
That she miscarried a deformed fetus cannot be proved by extant
documentation, as Henry would have had the vital evidence suppressed.
Later, Cromwell informed Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, that
the information obtained about her had been so abominable that “a
great part” of it was “never given in evidence but clearly kept secret.”
Indeed, he or other councilors probably deliberately destroyed it. The
statements of the female witnesses who were present in Anne’s privy
chamber when she miscarried, unlike those of Katherine Howard’s serv-
ants, who testified about her premarital sexual experiences, are not now
available.26
Later, Matthew Parker, Anne’s chaplain, claimed that she was innocent.
When serving as her daughter Elizabeth’s archbishop of Canterbury, he
noted that Anne’s soul rested in “blessed felicity with God.”27 The most
obvious way Henry could have believed her guilty while she repeatedly
denied the charges was that she had miscarried a deformed fetus. Why else
would Parker believe her soul resided in heaven?
142  R.M. Warnicke

It is ironic, given the above negative characterizations about Lady

Richmond and Anne Boleyn, that historians have sometimes ignored
positive diplomatic evidence about other royal ladies, for example, Anne
of Cleves. In 1539, Ambassador Nicholas Wotton at Cleves described her
as good-looking and Hans Holbein the Younger’s portrait of her as a
“lively” likeness. In November 1541, after Katherine Howard’s arrest,
Marillac praised Anne as more beautiful than her successor. Because
Henry criticized Anne’s looks when he met her, many writers, begin-
ning with Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury in 1682, have referred to
her as a “Flanders Mare,” insinuating that Holbein intentionally made
another German native look more attractive in his portrait than she really
was. Actually, the king complained that her “breasts and belly” were not
like those he expected a virgin to possess,28 concluding, therefore, that
her precontract of marriage with Francis, the heir of Antoine I, duke of
Loraine, was valid and that as she was Lorraine’s wife, she was not a vir-
gin, the official reason for ending their marriage.29
This chapter now turns to Katherine of Aragon’s service as her father’s
resident in England. When shortly after his accession Henry declared
that he wished to wed her, Ferdinand expressed great satisfaction, but
since she had complained bitterly about the activities of both Puebla
and his replacement, Gutierre Gomez de Fuensalida, her father sent her
a cautionary note, advising her in May to treat Fuensalida with civility
until after her wedding, when he would recall him and would tempo-
rarily rely on her as his resident. As early as July 1509, she reported to
Ferdinand that since the coronation, members of the court had spent
much time feasting. She also assured him that what mattered most to her
was that he had always treated her as his “true daughter and servant.”
By September, Ferdinand had selected Luis Caroz as his resident, but he
informed Henry that he should meanwhile credit all his communications
with his daughter the queen.30
Katherine took seriously her diplomatic role, a most unusual appoint-
ment for a premodern woman, even a queen. While ladies married to
foreign rulers did send sensitive material home, they usually did so unof-
ficially, but Katherine possessed special qualifications: she had lived in
England for almost 8 years and understood court functions and customs.
Aware that she acted as the Spanish resident, Henry admitted to his
father-in-law in early November that he had read Ferdinand’s message to
him and the queen and promised to be a “dutiful son.” On November
28, Ferdinand revealed to Katherine that he had received her ciphered
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  143

letter, which contained sensitive material, but that Henry had sent the
same information to him in plain writing. He begged her to discuss
with Henry the importance of ciphering those messages. Her father also
noted that he had received her letters of October 12, November 4, and
November 5, as well as the treaties that she had enclosed with them, and
that the new resident was en route to England.31
Even after Caroz’s arrival, Ferdinand continued to rely on her sup-
port. In June 1510, he ordered his resident to request her to persuade
Henry, if he decided against undertaking their planned venture against
France, to change his mind. If she refused her assistance, then Caroz
should ask her confessor, Friar Fernandez, to convince her to speak
with her husband about this issue. Two years later, Ferdinand notified
his daughter that he had sent Martin de Muxica with a message that
he, along with Caroz, should deliver to the king and to her. She con-
tinued to further her father’s causes, personally informing Muxica and
Caroz of her recommendation to Henry and his council that they send
aid to Ferdinand for his French war. Her ability to assist her father ended
because of Ferdinand’s and Henry’s disagreement over French diplo-
matic matters in 1513. The next year, in October, Henry’s sister, Mary,
wed Louis XII rather than Katherine’s nephew, the future emperor,
Charles, prince of Castile, to whom she had been betrothed since
1507. Katherine’s diplomatic standing began to improve in 1516, how-
ever, after the birth of her daughter, Mary, and the death of Ferdinand,
whose successor as king of Aragon was his grandson, Charles of Castile.
Messages for Katherine’s assistance began again to arrive. In August,
Charles asked her to aid one of his subjects, whom an English pirate had
robbed. After his election as Holy Roman Emperor in 1519, he notified
her that he had sent an agent with information for her, and in 1520, he
thanked her for promoting his recent meeting with Henry. Two years
later, when an ambassador of Charles’s brother, Ferdinand, the infante
and future emperor, met with Katherine to request that she persuade
Henry to aid his ruler against the Turks, she replied that she knew of
and agreed with her husband’s opinion that he could not employ his
resources in both French and Turkish warfare. The next year, in 1523,
Pope Adrian VI asked her to induce her husband to press for peace
among the Christian monarchs so that they could combine together to
defeat the Turks who had taken Rhodes. This evidence indicates that not
only did Henry discuss diplomatic matters with her but that foreign rul-
ers also believed that he exchanged views about European politics with
144  R.M. Warnicke

her. In contrast to her activities, no other English consort of Henry VIII

corresponded directly with foreign rulers.32
Among the Tudor queens, only Elizabeth of York and Katherine of
Aragon possessed daughters whose children were betrothed at an early
age. Despite the dismay of Henry VII’s wife and mother in 1498 about
the youthful Margaret’s possible marriage to James IV, which was dis-
cussed above, the negotiations did continue. Finally, on St. Paul’s Day,
1502, at Richmond, Robert Bladder, archbishop of Glasgow, read the
papal bull permitting her to wed James in her mother’s presence cham-
ber. Many relatives attended, but not her grandmother Richmond or her
brother, Arthur, and his wife, Katherine, who had gone to Wales. Before
she married James per verba de praesenti with Patrick Hepburn, earl of
Bothwell, acting as his proxy, the archbishop asked if she wished to wed
the Scottish king, and without “compulsion,” she replied, “If it pleases
my lord and Father the King, and my lady and Mother the Queen.”
After the exchange of vows, with trumpets sounding and minstrels play-
ing, Elizabeth took her young daughter by the hand and led her to din-
ner. Jousts and other celebrations followed that afternoon and on other
days. As Elizabeth died in early 1503, she did not live to say farewell to
Margaret when she moved to Scotland; nor was she able to witness the
betrothal of her younger daughter, Mary to Charles, prince of Castile, in
1507.33
Consorts rarely participated in the marriage negotiations, except for
the question of how old their daughters should be when their unions
were consummated, because they formed essential parts of alliances for
war and peace that rulers and their councilors controlled. An excep-
tion to this tradition seems to have existed for Katherine of Aragon.
On October 4, 1518, when their daughter, Mary, was 2 years old,
Henry, wanting to establish a firm peace with France, met with some of
that realm’s ambassadors and signed a treaty for her to marry Francis,
the dauphin, who was only a few months old. The next day, Katherine
joined Henry in witnessing the espousal of Mary to the dauphin’s proxy,
and on November 9, the royal couple swore oaths to support the mar-
riage treaty. When the king appointed three ambassadors, among them
Charles Somerset, earl of Worcester, to obtain an oath from Francis
that he too supported the treaty of marriage between his son and Mary,
Katherine also signed a commission for Worcester’s mission to France.
These documents indicate that Henry must have insisted that Katherine,
because of her relationship to Charles, king of Castile and future
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  145

emperor, agree to this treaty in writing, perhaps to allay French con-

cerns. Ironically, the day after Katherine swore to support the marriage
treaty, she gave birth to a stillborn daughter. This tragedy led Sebastian
Giustinan, the Venetian resident, to report to his government that as
a consequence, he believed Henry had begun to fear that the English
monarchy might pass to France because of his daughter Mary’s alliance
with the dauphin. There is no other evidence besides these diplomatic
exchanges in late 1518 that Katherine herself actually wanted her daugh-
ter to marry the dauphin. Indeed, when Queen Claude personally wrote
to her about her son, Katherine responded in writing only that her serv-
ant would provide her with good news about Henry and Mary. She did
not suggest, as had Elizabeth of York to Isabella earlier, that Claude and
she exchange news about their children, although she did say diplomati-
cally that she hoped the amity would last forever.34
Katherine must have been pleased when Henry abandoned the French
marriage and negotiated an alliance in June 1522 with Charles V that
provided for his betrothal to Mary. Henry’s changing opinion about
whom his daughter should wed seems to have represented his attempt,
as the king of a small country of “medium power,” according to David
Potter, to survive in the “unpredictable waters of European diplomacy
in the reign of Habsburg–Valois wars.” The treaty specified that when
she reached her twelfth year, the age church regulations accepted as valid
for girls to wed, that she should marry his proxy per verba praesenti,
and that within 4 months of swearing those vows, she should join him
at Bruges or Bilboa. Two years later, in July 1524, Cuthbert Tunstall,
bishop of London, Sir Richard Wingfield, and Richard Sampson, bishop
of Chichester, arrived at the emperor’s court to discuss his recent
demand for her immediate delivery. They explained that as she was not
much more than 9 years old (only eight), it would greatly endanger her
health and growth if they sent her to a strange land to be married. If he
believed that she needed a mistress to teach her Spanish manners, she
already had an excellent one in her mother.35
Various issues caused the abandonment of this alliance: Henry’s
refusal to deliver her to the emperor; Charles’s decision to wed Isabella
of Portugal; and the king’s joining an alliance to prevent Imperial domi-
nation of Italy. In 1526, diplomatic events caused Henry to turn once
again to the French king for his daughter’s marriage, but he warned in
January 1527 that he would not send her to him before their marriage
was consummated carnali copula, and at 11 years, she was still not ready
146  R.M. Warnicke

for that experience. At Greenwich, Thomas Wolsey, cardinal archbishop

of York, informed some ad hoc French ambassadors, when it remained
unclear whether Mary’s husband would be the French king or his second
son Henry, duke of Orléans (the future Henry II), that her father would
send her to France only when she was of marriageable age. The judges
for that decision, he said, should be her mother and the king’s mother,
Louise of Savoy.36
Later, in France, when John Clerk, bishop of Bath and Wells,
expressed concerns to Louise about Mary’s youth, she responded that
she saw no problem, as she had suffered no evil effects from her own
wedding at the age of 11. She suggested that Henry send Mary to
Calais where she could spend an hour or so in bed with her son for
conatus ad copulam cum illa, quæ est proxima pubertati, prudentia sup-
plente ætatem (in the attempt to copulate with one, who is very close to
puberty, her maturity of judgment serves in place of age). She demanded
that the puzzled Clerk send her exact words to Wolsey. On April 30, at
Greenwich, the French ambassadors and Henry’s councilors finalized the
treaty without deciding who would be the groom. A few days later, two
of them, Gabriel de Gramont, bishop of Tarbes, and Francis Turre, vis-
count of Turènne, met with Katherine. When they asked if she would
favor her daughter’s proposed French marriage, she promised to do so
but warned that the treaty would cause the emperor to become sus-
picious. They responded that the two kings had such power that they
could dictate terms to him.37
That same month, Henry began the legal process to end his marriage
to Katherine, to abandon his daughter’s French marriage, and to wed
Anne Boleyn. That in 1527 the French ambassadors chose to solicit a
consort’s approval for her daughter’s marriage was unusual. The negotia-
tions in December 1534 and January 1535 between France and England
reveal more normal practices. In December, Imperial diplomats claimed
that on his mission to England, Philip Chabot, sieur de Brion, admiral
of France, had again proposed to Henry a union between Mary Tudor,
his then illegitimated daughter, and Francis of Valois, the dauphin. The
following February, Palamedies Gontier, treasurer of Brittany, arrived
in England with messages from Cabot, who had returned home, that
focused instead on Elizabeth’s possible marriage to Charles of Valois,
duke of Angoulême, the third son of Francis. Whether or not the French
would agree to this betrothal seemed to depend on their accepting
reassurances that Elizabeth would be Henry’s heir. The king not only
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  147

revealed to them that a recent parliamentary statute had declared Mary a

bastard and Elizabeth his successor but also pointed out that if the new
pope, Paul III, would annul the invalid dispensation that had permitted
Katherine’s marriage to him, all doubts about the succession would dis-
appear. After two more days of deliberations, Gontier met with Anne,
who was clearly upset, probably because somehow she had learned,
perhaps from Henry, that the diplomat had raised questions about her
daughter’s place in the succession. Since it was improper, without the
king’s approval, to discuss specific details about Elizabeth’s legitimacy
and possible betrothal to Angoulême, she spoke indirectly about them,
explaining to Gontier that Henry disliked the delays in the negotiations
and informing him that the French should not act toward the king in
a manner that would leave her ruined and lost, for she believed herself
in great grief and trouble. Then she requested him to beg Chabot to
consider her affairs, of which she could not speak as fully as she wished,
on account of her fears and the eyes of those nearby, the king’s and his
lords’. After informing him that she would not be able to write to him
or to see him again, she left for her own chambers. Ultimately, although
these discussions continued, the two kings failed to reach a betrothal
agreement.38
That the French ambassadors had asked Katherine in 1527, as they
did not ask Anne in 1535, her opinion about her daughter’s marriage
proves how much they respected the earlier queen. This respect could
have arisen in part from their knowledge that the emperor, their enemy,
was her nephew, but it could also have been based on their understand-
ing of her diplomatic and political experience, as she had not only served
as Ferdinand’s ambassador and had been earlier involved in marriage
negotiations for her daughter but had also served as Henry’s regent
when he waged war with France in 1513. A discussion of that governing
experience now follows.
After leaving Katherine as his regent, Henry reached Calais on June
30; in August, his troops won the Battle of Spurs and took numerous
prisoners, including Louis of Orléans, duke of Longueville. The king
sent the duke to his regent, who, facing the threat of a Scottish inva-
sion, temporarily imprisoned him in the Tower of London.39 Later in
August, Henry seized the town of Térouanne and in September the city
of Tournai. On October 21, he returned home. The actions of his first
regent will be compared to those of his second regent, Katherine Parr,
in 1544. That year Henry left for France on July 11, arrived at Calais
148  R.M. Warnicke

on the 14th, besieged Boulogne, which surrendered on September 14,

and returned home on the 30th. Besides the longer period of time that
Katherine of Aragon ruled than did Katherine Parr, other differences
existed between the two regencies. While both women exerted political
influence, it is also true that a regent of an adult king did not possess the
same authority as a regent of a child king.
Henry granted to Katherine of Aragon the following powers: to make
commissions of muster and array; to grant licenses to elect to the chap-
ters of conventual churches not being cathedrals; to present to vacant
churches, in the king’s gift, rated between 20 and 40 marks; to appoint
sheriffs; to issue warrants under her sign manual to John Heron, treas-
urer of the king’s chamber, for payment of such sums as she might
require; and to sign warrants to the king’s secretary, keeper of his signet,
to issue warrants to the keeper of the privy seal, which served as warrants
to the chancellor to use the great seal. In a second grant, he gave her
the power to issue mandates to Heron and to pay any sums of money
ordered by her, by letters under her sign manual, to whatever persons
she might appoint, for defense of the kingdom.40 Evidence exists that
she exercised most of these powers, usually signing off on them with her
name alone.41
The king also arranged for appropriate officials to assist her. He released
her servants from joining him in the war and sent her a certified list of
the names of her councilors, officers, and servants.42 He selected William
Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, Sir
Thomas Englefield, speaker of the king’s first House of Commons, and Sir
Robert Southwell, chief butler of England, to advise her.43
Much more evidence has survived about Katherine Parr’s regency
than Katherine of Aragon’s, partly because of bureaucratic changes but
also partly because of Henry’s decisions. During his first queen’s regency,
the privy council had not yet fully emerged; of course, the king pos-
sessed a council, but its members did not form as organized and definite
a group with clerks and minutes, as they did after the execution in 1540
of Cromwell, recently ennobled as earl of Essex. While regent, Katherine
of Aragon corresponded on a weekly basis with Wolsey, still only the
royal almoner, requesting him to send back with her courier news about
the king, especially his health and military successes. She sometimes also
wrote personal letters to Henry. By contrast, in his grants to Katherine
Parr, Henry noted that she should seek the advice of five men whom he
appointed as members of the “council with the queen.” They included
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  149

Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas Wriothesley, lord chancellor, Thomas

Seymour, earl of Hertford, chief captain of the king’s armies and great
chamberlain, Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster, and Sir William
Petre, secretary. Either Wriothesley or Hertford, or both of them, should
always be present at court, and if both had to be absent, then the arch-
bishop and Petre should remain with the queen, but when convenient,
all five should attend her. The council should also consult with her lord
chamberlain, William, Lord Parr of Horton, about matters that con-
cerned the realm. Henry provided the council with some of the powers
that he had granted to Katherine of Aragon, such as overseeing musters.
He also ordered that both his regent and two of her councilors must
sign the warrants to his treasurer for money. In Katherine of Aragon’s
regency, those warrants required only her signature. Much of the evi-
dence concerning this last regency survives in letters exchanged between
the council of the queen to that of the king.44 It is interesting, given
these bureaucratic differences, that the first regent signed her name only
as queen, while the second one often signed off as queen regent.45
Both regents dealt with Scottish problems, but Katherine of Aragon
had to handle a much more dangerous challenge. Before the English vic-
tory at the Battle of Spurs on August 16, 1513, she had already begun
preparations to respond to a Scottish invasion. A military force, led by
Thomas Howard, future second duke of Norfolk, had to be equipped,
not just with ordinance, horses, carts, and uniforms but also with appro-
priate heraldic items to signal its status as the army royal. On August 13,
Katherine reported to Wolsey that she was “horribly busy with making
standards, banners, and badges.” She later signed a warrant to the Great
Wardrobe for two “standards of the lion crowned imperial according to
my lord’s standard and pattern,” two banners with the arms of England,
two with those of England and Spain, two with the cross of St. George,
“three of imagery (viz. of the Trinity, Our Lady and St. George), one
coat of the arms of England for a herald and one for a pursuivant, 6
trumpet banners and 100” pennants for divers carriages. Four councilors
countersigned this warrant, perhaps because Henry had failed to include
the removal of items from the Great Wardrobe in his original grants. On
September 16, overjoyed about the victory over James IV, who died at
the Battle of Flodden Field, she described it to Henry as a “great victory
that our Lord hath sent your subjects in your absence.” In her haste to
write, she admitted, she could not send him “the piece of the King of
Scots coat which John Glynn now brings. In this your Grace shall see
150  R.M. Warnicke

how I can keep my promise sending you for your banners a king’s coat.”
She ended her letter with “praying God to send you home shortly, for
without this no joy can here be accomplished and for the same I pray
and now go to Our Lady of Walsingham that I promised so long ago
to see.” She signed off as “his humble wife and true servant.” The news
that she had sent Henry a king in exchange for a duke circulated in the
diplomatic rumor mill.46
Other important matters occurred during her regency, but this chap-
ter now turns to that of Katherine Parr. Concerning Scotland, she and
her council had to negotiate the results of successful raids on the borders
and its changing politics. During their raids, the English forces seized
so many Scottish prisoners that their jails could not hold them all. By
exchanges of letters with Henry and his council, Katherine and her coun-
cil decided who should remain in prison at the king’s expense and who
should be released.47
Internal Scottish politics became more complicated when Matthew
Stewart, earl of Lennox, a resident in France since 1532, returned home
in 1543 as the French ambassador. There Lennox competed for power
with James Hamilton, earl of Arran; each claimed that as a descendant of
James II, he was the legitimate successor to Mary, queen of Scots, whose
father, James V, had died in 1542, when she was 6 days old. Her regent,
Arran, and her mother, Mary of Guise, favored a French alliance. Soon
realizing that he could not supplant Arran, Lennox fled to England in
July 1544 and married Margaret, daughter of Margaret Tudor by her
second husband, Archibald Douglas, earl of Angus, in the presence of
Henry and Katherine. Later in July, the king sent Lennox to the west
of Scotland on what turned out to be a futile expedition, and then in
August appointed him lieutenant of the north of England and the south
of Scotland. The letters of the queen and her council contain much news
about Lennox’s activities. They had, for example, to prevent certain
Scotsmen from returning home before he arrived there on his expedi-
tion.48 His subsequent actions move beyond this regency and form a part
of what has been termed “rough wooings,” the attempts to capture the
young queen and raise her in England as the future bride of Henry’s son,
Edward.49
Meanwhile, Arran and the dowager queen had sent several ships with
both Frenchmen and Scotsmen carrying dispatches for members of the
French court. In July, English fishermen at Rye seized one of the ships
off the Scottish coast. On the 31st, Katherine informed Henry about
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  151

its apprehension and sent him the letters that the fishermen had found.
Almost 1 month later, her council informed Lennox that a Scottish ship
had been seized off Scarborough with an ambassador from the dowager
queen to Francis, and that Katherine had forwarded his confiscated dis-
patches to Henry.50
The regent and her council also supplied Henry at Boulogne with
money, men, and armaments. The urgent need for reinforcements,
after Charles and Francis signed the Treaty of Crépy in September, led
Wriothesley to respond to messages for the king’s needs on the 25th
without waiting for advice from the queen and her other councilors,
who had been in residence at Woking at least since September 1. Until
September 24, he had himself been with the queen there and may well
have traveled to Eltham to prepare the palace for her arrival, since she
had reached it by the 28th. He forwarded to her at Woking the let-
ters that he had received, along with a message about the arrangements
he had made for the delivery of ships, money, and men to Boulogne.
Finally, he begged the queen’s pardon, for in this emergency he did
not wish to send a message to her and then “tarry” for her answer.51
No record of the queen’s reaction has survived, but the incident high-
lights how easily a member of a formal council could ignore obtaining
the regent’s advice than it would have been for one of the advisers of
Katherine of Aragon. As it turned out, this was a false alarm, and the
king returned safely home a few days later.
In her dispatches, Katherine Parr commented on the king’s health as
well as her love for him. At least seven letters from her to him and his
council have survived.52 It will be recalled from Chap. 2 of this book that
in 1547 she revealed to Thomas Lord, Seymour of Sudeley, her future
husband, her desire in 1543 to wed him instead of the king. Given that
information, it is interesting that on July 31, 1544, about 1 year after her
royal wedding, she wrote extremely affectionately to Henry. In her let-
ter, she admitted that although the days of his absence had not been long
(actually about three weeks), since she “so much beloved and desired” his
presence, “the time, therefore, seemed” to her “very long” and her “love
and affection compelled” her “to desire” his presence. Her love made her
“set apart” her “own commodity and pleasure” and “to embrace most
joyfully his will and pleasure whom” she “loved…. God, the knower of
secrets,” could “judge that these words” were not “written only with ink,
but most truly impressed on the heart.” She ended by “committing” him
“to the governance of the Lord with long and prosperous life here, and
152  R.M. Warnicke

after this life to enjoy the kingdom of the elect.”53 Perhaps in 1547, after
the king’s death, she had wanted to reassure Seymour of her deep love
for him by revealing her earlier wish to marry him, or perhaps she wanted
to rescue her reputation as a dowager queen from the blame of falling so
quickly in love with a mere baron. It is difficult to interpret the drastic
changes in her feelings toward Henry that her separate letters reveal during
that 1-year period from 1543 to 1544.
Her letters prove interesting for other reasons. First, they are unlike
those that Katherine of Aragon wrote to Henry when she served as
regent. The first regent’s messages, of course, were friendly, and in one
she admitted that she longed for his presence, but she failed to empha-
size her love for him, as did Katherine Parr. Perhaps their two writing
styles arose from the differences in their lineage and early education. A
second interesting issue is that the letter filled with words of love for
Henry seems to have been the only one this second regent wrote in
which she failed to assure the king and his council of the good health
of the prince and his other children, who lived under her care and pro-
tection. In July 1544, Katherine, Edward, Mary, and her council had
moved to Hampton Court Palace, with Elizabeth joining them in early
August. At the end of her regency, the two younger children returned to
Edward’s household, for only Mary was old enough to remain at court.54
Another way a queen could have an impact on royal decisions was by
performing the traditional intercessory role, which had emerged in the
early medieval period and which gained renewed prominence after the
marriage in 1236 of Henry III to Eleanor of Provence. The ceremony,
which developed from the earthly queen’s desire to imitate the interces-
sory role of the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, recognized the king’s
power but allowed him gracefully to change his mind in response to his
consort’s plea for mercy. In fact, although it provided him an opportunity
for modifying his original judgment without appearing weak, it is likely
that before the concession, he and his councilors had already decided on
granting mercy. The intercession could well be interpreted as a tool for
supporting the concept of patriarchal supremacy and the queen’s subor-
dination, but it did allow her to appear to have some influence over him
and perhaps to convey to him some governmental criticisms.55
Only evidence for one Tudor intercessory ceremony, that of Katherine
of Aragon, has survived. The evil May Day riots occurred in 1517; these
involved numerous apprentices, vagabonds, and sanctuary men attacking
London’s foreign sections, ransacking shops, setting some houses on fire,
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  153

and murdering some inhabitants. In response, the government estab-

lished martial law in London, executed some rioters, and imprisoned
many others. To restore peaceful relations between the court and the
city, the king and his councilors decided it made good sense to pardon
the prisoners. The reconciliation began at Richmond, where Katherine of
Aragon, after learning about the plight of the young men, with tears in
her eyes and on bended knee, begged for and obtained the king’s pardon
for them. Later, at Westminster Hall in front of a huge audience, Wolsey
first publicly reproved the prisoners for rebelling, then joined the other
lords present in requesting mercy for them. When Henry again agreed to
pardon them, “everybody wept for joy.” The Londoners did learn of the
queen’s earlier, private intercession, about which a contemporary writer
penned a popular ballad poem.56 The possible renewed rioting of the
London apprentices remained an ongoing concern, however. In 1527,
Claude Dodieu, councilor of the Parlément de Paris, noted that he and
the other French ambassadors, on their mission to negotiate a marriage
treaty with Mary, had not left their lodgings on May Day for fear of the
artisans who attacked foreigners on that day.57
By the reign of Katherine Howard, public ceremonies no longer
accompanied the intercessory role, which appears to have dwindled into
a bureaucratic routine. The privy council noted on March 26, 1541, that
great intercession had been made by the queen for Sir Thomas Wyatt
and Sir John Wallop, whom the king pardoned for various acts of trea-
son. Later, in October, with Henry at Nocton Hall, Lincolnshire, on
their northern progress, Katherine successfully asked him to pardon
Helen Page (alias Clerk) of Lyndesey for her felonies. In 1545, another
procedure emerged. The king’s dry stamp was used on two different
occasions to pardon several murderers at the suit of Katherine Parr.58
Whether either queen had actually initiated these pardons or simply
agreed to official requests for them is unknown.
Turning now to royal patronage, the queens regularly sought
advancement for their household’s officials and chaplains, mostly with
local grants such as positions on others’ estates, additional funding like
pensions, and appointments to benefices. This chapter will neither cover
that routine patronage nor the queens’ possible activities, which cannot
be easily documented, in influencing their husbands’ choice of coun-
cilors. Even for their relatives to gain high governmental office, royal
kinship did not suffice, since its acquisition depended on their political
or military skills; many of the Boleyn, Seymour, and Parr men, before
154  R.M. Warnicke

their sisters’ and daughters’ royal marriages, had already held impor-
tant court or military positions. Moreover, as noted in Chap. 4, that
Katherine Parr’s brother and brother-in-law did not obtain the politi-
cal power of, for instance, Edward Seymour, earl of Hertford, future
duke of Somerset, and that Katherine Howard’s brothers, who like her
descended from the dukes of Norfolk, did not reap great rewards beyond
some extra funds, proved the need even for the queens’ immediate rela-
tives to display political talents to achieve significant advancement. This
chapter now discusses evidence about Katherine of Aragon’s, Anne
Boleyn’s, and Katherine Parr’s patronage of scholars and of the men
selected to be bishops, or “state prelates,” as Cédric Michon referred to
them. He pointed out that during Henry VIII’s reign, the “laicisation”
of the king’s council meant that the episcopal participants declined from
40 to 20% of the total number. Still, this episcopal membership remained
significant. In 1513 and 1544, the king appointed two ecclesiastics as his
regents’ councilors.59
The religious actions and beliefs of Katherine of Aragon make it pos-
sible to view her as a transitional Christian queen, standing between the
late medieval piety of Elizabeth of York and the reformed views of Anne
Boleyn. Like Elizabeth, Katherine went on pilgrimages and enjoyed the
support of numerous chantries, the founders of which funded priests to
say prayers for the queens’ and kings’ souls, as well as for themselves and
others. Because of her heritage, Katherine also enjoyed support in Spain,
receiving in 1514 all the benefits of the Monastery of St. Jerome in the
diocese of Toledo from its prior. Furthermore, as a member of the third
order of the Franciscan Observant friars, she wore its robes under her
gowns.60
In addition to her adherence to the church’s emphasis on the afterlife,
which the prayers for the souls of the dead represented, Katherine also
displayed an interest in Christian humanism, an intellectual movement
that called for the values of Christianity to be melded with those of clas-
sical literature, both Latin and Greek. The Christian humanists proposed
that a combined classical and Christian education would lead people, at
first only men, to reform society, for example to alleviate poverty and to
abolish warfare. Later, because of Sir Thomas More’s leadership, girls,
like his daughter, Margaret Roper, could also obtain this advanced edu-
cation, making it possible for them to become better wives by conversing
about philosophical matters with their husbands, and to become better
mothers by providing their daughters with educations similar to theirs.
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  155

These humanists also called for discovering the most accurate, ancient
texts of the Bible and for it to be translated into vernacular tongues.61
As early as 1514, Erasmus, who denounced monastic and pilgrimage
abuses, informed a friend that during his time in England, Katherine of
Aragon had tried to gain “his service as her tutor.” He later referred to
her as “astonishingly well read,” claimed she was “as admired for piety…
as for learning,” informed his friend, Juan Luis Vives, that she greatly
appreciated the Spaniard’s work on free will, and related that he had
dedicated to her in 1526 his Institutio Christiani Matrimonii, which her
lord chamberlain, William Blount, Lord Mountjoy, his patron, had asked
him to write for her.62 As earlier noted, she relied on Vives for instruc-
tional books for her daughter Mary’s education.
In England, Wolsey, also a patron of humanists, drew up plans to con-
struct Cardinal College at Oxford. In January 1525, Henry led John
Longland, bishop of Lincoln, into Katherine’s chamber to explain those
plans for the college, which included daily lectures in Greek and Latin
and philosophy, as well as provisions for the exposition of the Bible.
That the college curriculum included both classical learning and bibli-
cal studies greatly pleased the queen, even though to fund it Wolsey had
dissolved the Priory of St. Frideswide, on the land of which the college
was built, and several other priories. As noted in Chap. 4, later, William
Forrest, who served as a chaplain for her daughter, Queen Mary, recalled
in his account of Katherine’s life, which he entitled The History of Grisild
the Second, how much she loved to read the scriptures and saints’ lives.63
The search for the bishops that she might have patronized begins
with the identification of the three attending her in 1520 at the Field
of Cloth of Gold. They included Bishop Fisher, Charles Booth, bishop
of Hereford, and Jorge de Athequa, bishop of Llandaff. As Wolsey had
asked Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, for the number of men and
women who planned to accompany his wife, Mary, the widowed French
queen, to this meeting, it would seem reasonable to assume that the car-
dinal also consulted with the English queen about attendants. If not, it
is ironic that either Wolsey or the king chose three bishops who favored
her, or who at least wanted to favor her struggle against the dissolu-
tion of her royal marriage. Two circumstances might have led her to
select Fisher. First, when he held the position of councilor during her
regency, the two could have developed a good relationship, for later in
1529, he served as a member of her legal team at the Blackfriars trial,
which investigated the validity of her royal marriage. After that hearing
156  R.M. Warnicke

ended without a verdict, he continued as her principal supporter, for

which in 1535 he suffered execution. Second, Katherine’s enthusiasm for
humanist scholarship could have led her to favor him. He had written
the statutes for St. John’s College, Cambridge, founded by Margaret,
Lady Richmond, that followed the example of the humanist Collegium
Busleiden at Louvain University.64
Obviously, since Henry VII had nominated Fisher as bishop of
Rochester, Katherine did not influence his elevation, but she might have
had some input into the advancement of Charles Booth, who became
bishop of Hereford in 1516. As he had previously served in 1495 as
treasurer of Bishop William Smith’s diocese of Lichfield, his biographer,
D. G. Newcombe, speculated that it was through his association with
Smith that Booth gained appointment to the Council of Wales when
Arthur served as its prince. Since Smith died in 1514, he did not recom-
mend Booth to Henry VIII for the bishopric, but as Katherine had met
him in Wales during her short marriage to Arthur, she could have helped
influence his election. In 1529, his negative attitude toward Henry’s
plans at convocation caused the angry king to order Cromwell to prose-
cute the bishop “according to the laws… if he do not agree.” Apparently
this threat was sufficient to lead him, perhaps reluctantly, to support the
king’s cause. Unlike Bishop Fisher, however, he did not support human-
ist reform.65
The little that is known about Llandaff, a Spanish Dominican,
clearly points to Katherine’s influence on his career. Because she always
confessed in Spanish, she preferred a priest from her native land and
chose Athequa to replace Friar Fernandez, on whom she had greatly
depended but who had left for Spain in 1514. It is interesting that she
was able to persuade the king to provide a bishopric for Athequa, who
later remained absolutely loyal to her. In 1533, Lord Mountjoy and
other councilors asked Henry to allow Llandaff, although he refused to
deny her the title of queen, to remain with her, as he was a simple man
who could do little harm. Mountjoy might have been unaware that he
served as a go-between for Katherine with ambassadors friendly to her.
In January 1536, the sorrowful bishop celebrated mass, heard her con-
fession, administered extreme unction to her, and participated in her
funeral. In September of that year, Henry finally gave to Chapuys a pass-
port for Llandaff, permitting his departure for home.66
Besides Bishop Fisher, six other episcopal churchmen—William
Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, John Clerk, bishop of Bath and Wells,
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  157

John Vesey, bishop of Exeter, Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of Durham,

Henry Standish, bishop of Asaph, and Nicholas West, bishop of Ely—gave
her legal advice for the Blackfriars trial concerning the validity of her mar-
riage to the king in 1529. It is well known that she was not their major
source of patronage. Henry VII had appointed Archbishop Warham;
Bishop Clerk’s and Bishop Vesey’s patron was Wolsey; and Bishop
Tunstall’s patron was Archbishop Warham; Henry VIII, who appreciated
Bishop Standish’s preaching, had selected him over Wolsey’s objections
and probably had rewarded Bishop West for his diplomatic endeavors. On
the critical second day of the trial, only Fisher and West attended her, but
later she expressed doubts about the latter’s sincerity. Except for Fisher,
these churchmen ultimately pled guilty at convocation for supporting
Wolsey as the papal legate and subsequently recognized the king as the
head of the church in England.67
This chapter now turns to Katherine’s successor, Anne, who while
living in the household of Marquerite, duchess of Alençon, had close
contact with French humanists such as Clément Marot and Jacques
Lefevre d’Etaples. They, like their counterparts in the rest of Europe,
emphasized scriptural reading and classical scholarship, among other
studies. After Anne arrived home in the winter of 1521, the first evi-
dence about her focused on court activities and the courtship of Lord
Henry Percy (future fifth earl of Northumberland). Later, at the end
of her rustication because of that courtship, evidence of her interest
in religious reform began to appear. Of Erasmus’s humanist friends in
England who were still alive, including More, Tunstall, Richard Pace,
and Fisher, however, only John Stokesley, bishop of London, supported
Henry’s arguments for ending his marriage to Katherine. Three issues
that differed Anne’s religious life from that of Katherine were: Anne was
opposed to pilgrimages; only one chantry was founded that included
prayers for Henry and her; and when in 1536 Parliament determined
that all monasteries worth £200 or less would be dissolved, instead of
defending their continued existence, as Katherine might have done,
Anne called for them to be put to better use, to become “places of study
and good letters.”68
Thus, Anne and the reformers who supported her emphasized the
royal supremacy as well as biblical translations and classical learning.
Chapuys denounced her as a Lutheran, but she did not believe in jus-
tification by faith alone. As queen, it would have been a difficult stance
to defend since Pope Leo X had awarded Henry the title of Defender
158  R.M. Warnicke

of the Faith as a reward for Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, his attack

on Martin Luther’s views of the sacraments. Although she read mostly
scriptures, psalms, and other religious books in French, she did own
a copy of the New Testament translated into English by the heretic
William Tyndale. In modified form, however, his New Testament formed
the core of all English Bibles printed legally in Henry’s reign. In fact,
in 1535, Miles Coverdale was the first writer to translate and print the
entire Bible in English, which included Tyndale’s New Testament. He
dedicated the Bible first to Anne and then in 1537 to Jane, who has
never been associated with heresy. Tradition also claimed that Anne pos-
sessed a copy of Tyndale’s Obedience of a Christian Man, which denied
papal power, and presented it to Henry, who had long been reading
heretical works. She could not have been overly fond of Tyndale’s writ-
ings, as he later denounced Henry’s reasons for ending his marriage to
Katherine. In his martyrology, John Foxe noted that a copy of Simon
Fish’s A Supplication for the Beggars, a deeply anticlerical work, was sent
to her and that she also forwarded it to Henry. Her possession of these
books did not necessarily mean that, except for the royal supremacy, she
had moved much beyond the humanist critique of religion. Indeed, in
1536, Anne refused to accept Tristram Revel’s translation of a book by
Francis Lambert, entitled in English The Summe of Christianitie Gathered
Out Almost All Places of Scripture, which called for justification by faith
alone and communion in both kinds. Henry must have been somewhat
aware of her religious views because her chaplain, William Latimer, later
revealed that as queen, she “debated the scriptures” with the king when
they took their “repaste abroade.” Finally, just before her execution, she
explained that she would go to heaven, for she had “done many good
deeds.”69
Anne’s chaplain, William Latimer, later identified five bishops whom
she patronized: Archbishop Cranmer, Thomas Goodrich, bishop of
Ely, Hugh Latimer, bishop of Worcester, Nicholas Shaxton, bishop of
Salisbury, and John Skip, bishop of Hereford. Cranmer did develop a
close relationship with her, but by 1527 he was already in the king’s ser-
vice, while her father had served as one of his early patrons. It is possible
that she did speak to Henry about him, since Cranmer supported the
dissolution of the king’s marriage to Katherine, and in 1529 began can-
vassing universities abroad about the king’s Leviticus argument. Among
his surviving letters, however, Cranmer sent none to her, but he did
send one to her father and one to her brother. Before her execution, she
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  159

made her last confession to Cranmer. No definite evidence proves that

she intervened for him to become archbishop in 1532 or for Thomas
Goodrich to become bishop of Ely in 1534. Goodrich’s friendship with
Cranmer probably led to his decision to join him in researching the
legality of Henry’s marriage to Katherine, although it is known that he
also had some Boleyn patronage.70
For Nicholas Shaxton, her almoner, and Hugh Latimer, her chaplain,
no doubt of her support exists. Both attended Cambridge University
and became zealous reformers, usually identified in modern scholarship
as evangelicals. Archbishop Cranmer, who placed Shaxton and Latimer
onto the court’s preaching schedule could also have had some influ-
ence on their advancement. In a letter to the dean of the chapel royal
in 1535, Cranmer referred to Shaxton as “my old acquainted friend,”
the queen’s almoner, and pointed out that he had requested the king for
permission to have Latimer preach on Wednesdays in Lent and Shaxton
on the third Sunday in Lent. However, it may have been partially their
court preaching that led Cranmer later that year to issue a directive that
attempted to tone down religious controversies. In it, he ordered that for
1 year no priest was to preach either for or against purgatory, honoring
the saints, the marriage of priests, justification by faith, pilgrimages, and
miracles. If so, Shaxton’s and Latimer’s ministry did not prevent their
episcopal preferment. In the spring 1535, the king elevated Shaxton as
bishop of Salisbury and during that fall Latimer as bishop of Worcester;
Anne lent them each £200 to pay the customary first fruits and tenths,
which they still owed at her death. Even so, in a letter to Cromwell in
November 1535, the archbishop related that Latimer, the new bishop of
Worcester, had written to him in Cromwell’s name to complain about
his episcopal leadership of the church. In a letter on May 23, 1536, to
Cromwell, Shaxton later referred to Anne’s guilt, insisting that she had
greatly deceived him.71
The case of John Skip proves that William Latimer’s memory about
the men whom Anne patronized as bishops was somewhat faulty. In
1535, Skip replaced Shaxton as her almoner, and he continued to serve
her until her death. He might, in fact, have believed in her innocence
because Sir William Kingston, constable of the Tower of London,
reported that he was with her continually during her last hours on May
19, 1536, the day of her execution. His support for her did not pre-
vent his further advancement, as he gained the bishopric of Hereford
some 3 years later in 1539. Unlike Shaxton and Latimer, who resigned
160  R.M. Warnicke

their bishoprics in 1539 when Parliament enacted the conservative Six

Articles, he seems not to have pressed for further religious reform in his
diocese.72
The only Tudor consort who had books published under her own
name was Katherine Parr. Besides organizing a English version of
Erasmus’s Latin paraphrases on the four Gospels and acts in Paraphrases
in Novum Testamentum, which was discussed in Chap. 4, she composed
and had printed Prayers and Meditations in 1545 and The Lamentation
of a Sinner, written in 1546 but not printed until 1547. On the basis
of circumstantial evidence, some modern scholars, including Janel
Mueller and Susan James, have also identified her as the translator of a
Latin work by Bishop Fisher that was printed in English anonymously
in 1544.73 This section of the chapter briefly examines her Prayers and
Meditations, then turns to the bishop’s Psalms or Prayers and then to the
Lamentation. Finally, it examines her possible patronage of bishops.
She based her Prayers and Meditations on the English translation
by Richard Whitford of the third book of Thomas à Kempis’s Imitatio
Christi, which was published about 1531. This book, the most popu-
lar devotional work of the medieval period, continued to be popular in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Some 13 translations and three
paraphrases of it were published between 1500 and 1700, nine of them
Catholic and seven of them Protestant. A number of other translations
also can be found in manuscript form only. In her version, the queen,
as Janel Mueller related, made “an intertextual appropriation that con-
stitutes a genuine claim for authorship,” changing most importantly
its dialogue between Christ and an individual called his son into a ver-
sion with a human speaker yielding “self to God in a posture of total
dependency.”74 One reason for crediting the queen with translating
Bishop Fisher’s Latin work is that she added two of his translated prayers
to the end of her Prayers and Meditations, but authors often copied the
work of others, as there were no copyright laws at this time. Another
reason offered is that Thomas Berthelet, the publisher of the translation
in 1544, submitted a book bill to a clerk of her chapel for 20 copies of
Fisher’s translated work that were delivered to her almoner, George Day,
bishop of Chichester, for the queen.75 As Bishop Day had received an
MA from St. John’s College, Cambridge, a humanist center, whose stat-
utes Bishop Fisher had written, it could easily be argued instead that Day
completed the anonymous translation and brought it to her attention.
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  161

In 1523, he had composed two short Latin verses for Assertionis

Lutheranae Confutatis, a publication by Bishop Fisher.76
Usually early modern women, who knew classical Latin well enough
for them to translate a humanist’s composition, not only left evidence of
their advanced skills in their own handwriting, which Katherine did not
do, but also gained the attention of contemporary writers who identified
various female classical scholars, such as Henry VIII’s daughters and his
grandniece, Lady Jane Grey. About the usual education for aristocratic
children, Nicholas Orme has revealed that they first learned the Latin
alphabet, and when they began recognizing and pronouncing words,
they read Latin texts. According to Orme, the “elementary knowledge
of Latin” was “probably universal” among “both sexes.” Most would
have learned to read the paternoster, the Ave Maria, and the Apostle’s
Creed, the early pattern of education also for Henry VIII and Arthur.
In Maude Parr’s household, a single tutor taught her three young chil-
dren—Katherine, William, and Anne—their lessons. It is noteworthy that
by 1545, Roger Ascham had met Katherine and her sister, Lady Herbert,
at court. At that time, Ascham, who over Katherine’s objections was
to become Elizabeth’s tutor in 1548, informed Lady Herbert that she
needed to improve her Latin skills and sent to her Cicero’s De Officiis, a
book she would have already known well had she studied classical Latin
grammar after learning the church version. This would seem to have been
the educational pattern that continued beyond the sixteenth century. An
English Jesuit priest, born in 1604, for example recalled that “he with his
brothers was taught the Latin tongue by his mother so well that when
afterward sent to St. Omer’s, they were judged fit for grammar.”77
It is interesting that for her first publication efforts, the queen
selected the translation of a medieval classic and some humanist com-
positions, emphasizing biblical studies and meditations. It was in The
Lamentation of a Sinner, written probably in mid-1546, that she most
openly explained her religious views. In it, she called the bishop of Rome
“riffraff,” emphasized the sinfulness of people, for they could do noth-
ing without God’s grace, and explained, “Christ crucified to be mine
only Savior and Redeemer.” She went on to claim that it was through
“lively faith” that good works were done and that individuals should not
“be ashamed” to confess when “they digress from God’s ordinances,”
for then they must “redress and amend” their lives. Her faith was not
that of Luther, for she also said, “I pray God that our own faults and
162  R.M. Warnicke

deeds condemn us not, at the last day, when every man will be rewarded
according to his doings.” Mueller has compared her beliefs to those of
some early Reformation clerics and said her work was “an affirmation of
a role for human cooperation in the dynamic of salvation.”78
Because of Katherine Parr’s strong religious beliefs, according to the
story first related by John Foxe in 1570, the king agreed to have her
arrested for heresy. She had begun debating religious issues with Henry,
praising him for “banishing that monstrous idol of Rome” but noting
that “great superstition” remained in the church. As his health deteri-
orated, he became less and less tolerant of her assertiveness. She must
have been less diplomatic in her tone than Anne Boleyn had earlier been.
According to Foxe, it was Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, who,
after overhearing one of Katherine’s exchanges with Henry, later success-
fully asked the king to authorize him to write up a bill of articles to have
her arrested for heresy. Briefly concerning a somewhat detailed story, she
discovered the existence of the bill of articles and fearfully went to bed.
The king found her there, and when he asked what was wrong, she asked
to see him the next day. At that time, she explained that she had not
only spoken about religious matters to distract him from his illness but
also because she hoped to learn from his wise responses to her. As an
inferior woman, she had the duty to obey him as her lord and master.
Pleased by her explanation, Henry declared that they were perfect friends
again. Obviously it was less her beliefs than it was his suspicion that she
was attempting to teach him, the head of the Church of England, about
religious matters that offended him. When on the next day Wriothesley,
not Bishop Gardiner, arrived to arrest Katherine, Henry rudely dismissed
him.79
Thomas Freeman has argued persuasively that Foxe’s story was based
on information that one of her attendants provided to his researcher.
Many of his details dovetail with known facts, such as the names of her
doctor and her female attendants. Freeman dated the episode between
March and August 1546, when the court was at Whitehall, which was
where Foxe placed the dispute. He also believed that Gardiner, Foxe’s
“usual suspect” in attacks on heretics, could have overhead the conversa-
tion that led the king to order her arrest, but that he was not involved in
the conspiracy against her. The king seems otherwise to have supported
Wriothesley’s moves against heretics, including Anne Askew in July
1546. Freeman noted that the episode with Katherine showed an “ele-
ment of calculation” on the king’s part and identified it as a “product
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  163

of” his “style of ruling and the tensions at his court.”80 It is actually pos-
sible that some tension already existed in the relationship of Katherine
and Wriothesley, since as noted above, he responded to Henry’s needs at
Boulogne without previously consulting her as the king’s regent.
Despite her general support of reform, she approved only of reading
religious works, especially the Bible. When in February 1546 Cambridge
University officials requested that she plead with the king not to dissolve
their colleges, she responded that they should not have written to her in
Latin but should have asked her “familiarly in our vulgar tongue aptly
for my intelligence.” Furthermore, she warned them against emphasizing
the “profane learning” of the “Greeks at Athens.” Instead, they should
prefer “the most Sacred doctrine” rather than the “natural or moral at
Athens.” After these admonitions, she informed them that the king had
promised not to dissolve their colleges.81
Of the episcopal leaders with whom Katherine was associated during
her queenship, only Cranmer and perhaps Thomas Thirlby, bishop of
Westminster since 1540, can be defined as two who wanted to reform
the church beyond separating from Rome and dissolving monaster-
ies and chantries. Cranmer did, of course, serve on her regency coun-
cil and might have had some influence on her beliefs. The other bishop
on her regency council was Thirlby. After 1544, he had little contact
with the queen, spending the last years of Henry’s reign as resident at
the Imperial court. Although he seems to have been an evangelical early
in his career, after the accession of Edward VI, he opposed many of the
religious changes, but he chose to obey the Statute of Uniformity of
1549, for example, when Parliament enacted it. Thereafter, he held vari-
ous governmental positions and then supported Mary after her accession,
winning from her the bishopric of Ely.82
Bishop Day, who served as Katherine’s almoner from 1545, had
contacts with Bishop Fisher and belonged to the humanist circle at St.
John’s. Besides accepting the Statute of Supremacy, he had membership
on commissions to survey the chantries in three counties. In the reign
of Edward VI, however, he disagreed about further changes in church
ritual. Because he refused to replace the altars with tables in the churches
in his diocese, the government deprived him of his bishopric in 1551.83
It is ironic that although Katherine’s female attendants included reform-
ers, such as Katherine Brandon, duchess of Suffolk, and Anne Seymour,
countess of Hertford, who gave money to the heretic, Anne Askew, she
seems to have relied on only one evangelical chaplain, John Parkhurst, a
164  R.M. Warnicke

graduate of Merton College, Oxford, whom Rudolf Gwalther, a Zurich

scholar and visitor to the university in 1537, later recalled had begun “to
profess the pure faith in Christ.” Sometime after 1543 she appointed him
as her chaplain and in 1547 presented him to the rectory of Pimperne,
Dorset. He was with her when she died after childbirth in September
1548. After Queen Mary restored the papal supremacy, he joined other
dedicated Protestants in exile and when, after her death, he returned to
England, Queen Elizabeth granted him the bishopric of Norwich.84
That Parkhurst was her only evangelical chaplain as queen might not
have been true, but little evidence has survived about most of the oth-
ers. In 1544, Francis Goldsmith, an attorney in her household, wrote a
Latin letter to her, extolling her pious studies and calling her household
a “holy household” where Christ was “daily celebrated.” Janel Mueller
has interpreted his letter as a plea to become one of her chaplains. In
fact, he may have been the Goldsmith (first name not mentioned) whom
Katherine, as dowager queen, preferred to appoint in 1548 as Elizabeth’s
tutor rather than Ascham.85 Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that
because some writers sent Latin letters to Katherine that she could read
them any more than Elizabeth of York could read the Latin letters sent
to her from Spain. Whether learned in classical studies or not, no ques-
tion can be raised about the existence of this last Tudor consort’s pious
and religious interests and commitments.
This short survey of the queens’ political roles clarifies that they
could have important influence on some governmental matters. Their
diplomatic opportunities varied, but clearly consorts with international
relationships had more input and involvement than those without con-
nections abroad. Her father’s selection of Katherine of Aragon as his resi-
dent in England provided her with many more opportunities to influence
relationships with other counties than that of any of the other Tudor
queens. The consorts’ appointments as regents especially, and pleas as
intercessors gave them some governmental experiences and interactions.
Katherine of Aragon’s, Anne Boleyn’s, and Katherine Parr’s religious
patronage and relationships with bishops attests to their pious leadership
and support for various kinds of reform, although in most cases it is dif-
ficult to understand which patron’s wishes for appointments were more
important, for example, Wolsey’s, Cranmer’s, Cromwell’s, or some of
Henry’s queens, especially Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. What
also cannot be discovered is how much influence the queens had as a
result of their private moments with Henry VII and Henry VIII.
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  165

Notes
1. Donald Queller, The Office of Ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 94–140, 146; Scottish Record Office,
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J.S.
Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R.H. Brodie, 21 vol. in 35 (London: HMSO, 1862–
1932), I, 474, 2131 (hereafter LP). For studies of diplomats and spies, see the
essays in Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox, eds., Diplomacy and Early Modern
Culture (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).
2. Jocelyne Russell, Peacemaking in the Renaissance (London: Duckworth,
1986), p. 69.
3. Karen Newman, Cultural Capitals: Early Modern London and Paris
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. 151.
4. Robert Shephard,“Sexual Rumours in English Politics: The Cases of
Elizabeth I and James I,” Desire and Sexuality in the Premodern West,
ed. Jacqueline Murray and Konrad Eisenbichler (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1996), p. 102.
5. Scottish Record Office, Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts,
Existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan. Published by the
Authority of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury Under
the Direction of the Master of the Rolls (London: HMSO, 1912), 463
(hereafter CSP Milan); LP, III, 118; Scottish Record Office, Calendar of
Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations Between
England and Spain Preserved in the Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere,
ed. G.A. Bergenroth, P. De Gayangos, G. Mattingly, M.A.S. Hume,
and R. Taylor, 13 vol. 2 supplements (London: Longman, 1862–1954),
VI-i, 295, 306, 309, VI-ii, 94 (hereafter CSP Span); Jean Kaulek, ed.,
Correspondance Politique de MM. De Castillon et Marillac: Ambassadeurs
de France en Angleterre, 1537–1542 (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1885), pp. 218,
223, 228, 314. Later, after her arrest, Marillac momentarily thought the
king might take Anne back. See p. 371.
6. Leonard Howard, A Collection of Letters from the Original Manuscripts
of Many Princes, Personages, and Statesmen (London, 1753, Eighteenth
Century Collections Online http://www.galenet.galegroup (accessed
6/29/2006), p. 307. See also LP, II, 2967, 3120, III, 2770.
7. Great Britain, Record Commission, State Papers of Henry VIII, 11 vols.
(London: HMSO, 1830–1842), VIII, 191 (hereafter State Papers);
Joseph Bain, Grant Simpson, and James Galbraith, eds., Calendar
of Documents Relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots, 13 vols.
(Edinburgh: H.M. General Register Office, 1989–1969), VIII, 247.
8. Richard Edward Lundell, “The Mask of Dissimulation: Eustace Chapuys
and Early Modern Diplomatic Technique, 1536–1545,” Ph.D. dissertation,
166  R.M. Warnicke

University of Illinois at Urbana, 2001, p. 36. has a different opinion:

Cromwell was trying to establish space between himself and his position as
representative of the king in order to have greater freedom in presenting his
ideas.
9. CSP Span, V-ii, 43; see also V-I, 170, 182; Timothy Hampton, Fictions
of Embassy: Literature and Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2009), pp. 20–21; Alain Chartier, Here Foloweth
the Copye of a Lettre Whyche Maistre Alayn Charetier Wrote to Hys Brother
… Translated out of Frensshe into Englysshe, second edition (Westminster:
William Caxton, 1483), sig. V. (STC 5057).
10. M.S. Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450–1919 (London:
Longman, 1993), p. 16; CSP Milan, 539; Scottish Record Office,
Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English affairs,
Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other Libraries of
Northern Italy, ed. R. Brown G. Cavendish-Bentinck, and H. F. Brown,
38 vols. (London: HMS Office, 1864–1947), I, 754, 765. See also LP, I,
92, 1276.
11. CSP Span, I, 40.
12. CSP Span, I, 204, 205, 210.
13. CSP Span, I, 34(17,18), 40, 185, 245.
14. CSP Span, I, 188, 202, 203, 212, 253, 268, 277. Margaret later mar-
ried the duke of Savoy and when widowed became the regent of the
Netherlands; LP, III, 648.
15. CSP Span, I, 203, 204, 209.
16. CSP Span, I, 204, 210.
17. E.W. Ives, “Faction at the Court of Henry VIII: The Fall of Anne
Boleyn,” History 57(1972), 176–186; Ives, Faction in Tudor England
(London: The Historical Association, 1979), pp. 16–18, 24–29, clari-
fied his definition of faction; for diplomatic politics, see John Michael
Archer, Sovereignty and Intelligence: Spying and Court Culture in the
English Renaissance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), p. 49.
and Catherine Fletcher, The Divorce of Henry VIII: The Untold Story from
Inside the Vatican (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
18. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, “The Most Happy” (Oxford:
Blackwell, 2004), pp. 307–311.
19. G.W. Bernard, “The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Rejoinder” English Historical
Review, 107(1992), 665–674; Bernard, “The Fall of Anne Boleyn,”
English Historical Review, 106(1991), 584–610.
20. Bernard, Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2009), pp. 148–181, 195, 202, n. 15; Georges Ascoli, ed., La
Grande-Bretagne Devant L’Opinion Française Depuis La Guerre de
Cent Ans Jusqu’a La Fin Du XVI Siècle (Paris: Librairie Universitaire
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  167

J. Gamber, 1927), pp. 231–73. For an English translation, see Susan

Walters Schmid, “Anne Boleyn, Lancelot de Carle and the Uses of
Documentary Evidence,” Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University,
2009, pp. 109–176. 21.
21. State Papers, I, 551.
22. Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the
Tudors from A.D. 1485 to 1559, ed. W. D. Hamilton, Camden Society,
new series, vols. XI and XX (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1875–1877),
XI, 33; CSP Span, V-ii, 21.
23. Edward Hall, Henry VIII, intro. Charles Whibley, 2 vols. (London: T.C.
& E.C. Jack, 1904), II, 78, 80, 84, 108, 242, 266, 268, 303, 305; Peter
Herman, “Hall, Edward (1497–1547), lawyer and historian,” Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter ODNB) www.oxforddnb.
com (accessed May 22, 2016). Hall is cited as evidence for Henry’s state-
ment since he was elected to the Reformation Parliament. For more
about tournaments, see Chap. 6. See also, Janette Dillon, Performance
and Spectacle in Hall’s Chronicle (London: Society for Theatre Research,
2002).
24. CSP Span, V-ii, 40.
25. BL Add. MS. 25,114, f. 175 (LP, XI, 29).
26. CSP Span, V-ii, 120. For studies of monstrous births, see the following:
Franco Simone, The French Renaissance: Medieval Tradition and Italian
Influence in Shaping the Renaissance in France, trans. H. Hall (London:
Macmillan, 1969), pp. 155–156; Ottavia Niccoli, “‘Menstruum quasi
Monstruum’: Monstrous Births and Menstrual Taboo in the Sixteenth
Century,” Sex and Gender in Historical Perspective, ed. Edward Muir and
Guido Ruggerio, trans. Margaret Gallucci (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1990), p. 3; Angus McLaren, Reproductive Rituals:
The Perception of Fertility in England From the Sixteenth century to the
Nineteenth Century (London: Methuen, 1984), p. 47.
27. John Bruce and Thomas Perowne, eds. Correspondence of Matthew
Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1853), pp. 59, 70, 391.
28. BL Cotton Vitellius. B. XXI, f. 87b (LP, XIV-ii, 33); State Papers, I,
604; BL Cotton Titus B I, fo. 409 (LP, XV, 822); see also LP, XV, 825;
Kaulek, Castillon, 371. Gilbert Burnet, The History of the Reformation
of the Church of England, 3 vols. in 6 parts (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1816), I-1, 492–493.
29. For more explanation, see Retha M. Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne
of Cleves: Royal Protocol in Tudor England (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000).
30. CSP Span, II, 15, 21; LP, I, 127, 254.
168  R.M. Warnicke

31. CSP Span, II, 23. 27, 28.

32. CSP Span, II, 50, 72, 437; LP, I, 1460, 3581, III, 552, 776, 2295, 2305,
2848–2849; State Papers, I, 55; CSP Span, II, 437.
33. John Leland, Joannis Lelandi antiquarii de rebus Britannicis collectanea,
ed. Thomas Hearne, 6 vol. (London: William and John Richardson,
1770), IV, 258–64.
34. LP, II 4475, 4480, 4564(4), 4568, 4693, III, 728.
35. CSP Span, II, 427, 430; LP, IV, 1484; David Potter, “Foreign Policy,”
The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy, Piety, ed. Diarmaid MacCulloch
(Basingstoke.: Macmillan, 1995), p. 106.
36. LP, IV, 1819, 2773, 2974. For the betrothal to the dauphin, see LP, II,
1504, 4693, III, 446, which also has information about the exchange
of news between Katherine and Claude of France concerning their
betrothed children.
37. LP, IV, 2981, n. 22, 3080. My thanks to Antonella Dell’Anna, my col-
league at Arizona State University, for assistance with this difficult transla-
tion.
38. LP, VII, 1427, 1466, 1482(2), 1522, 1593, VIII, 174, 557, 793.
39. LP, I, 2182, 2261.
40. LP, I, 2055 (46–47).
41. For exercising these powers, see LP, I, 2143, 2222, 2422.
42. LP, I, 1985.
43. LP, I, 2243.
44. For the changing council, see the essays in David Starkey, ed., The English
Court: From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (London: Longman,
1987); State Papers, I, 763; LP, I, 2120; T.N.A. SP 1/189/1841–1861
(LP, XIX-1, 864); T.N.A. SP 1/189/218 (LP, XIX-1, 889); see also
LP,XIX-I, 890, 927, 982, XIX- II 214.
45. State Papers, V, 28; T.N.A. SP 1/189, f. 128 (LP, XIX-I, 864 no. 3); LP,
XIX-I, 967.
46. BL MS Cotton Vespasian, F. III, f. 15l; Henry Ellis, ed., Original Letters
Illustrative of English History, 3 vols. series one (London: Harding,
Triphook and Lepard, 1824), I, 82, 88; LP, 1, 2268. See also LP, I,
2152, 2182, 2200, 2260,
47. LP, XIX-I, 931, 954, 962, XIX-ii, 40.
48. LP, XIX-I, 1014–1016; LP, XIX-ii, 1, 58.
49. Marcus Merriman, “Stewart, Matthew, thirteenth or fourth earl of
Lennox (1516–1571), magnate and regent of Scotland,” ODNB, www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed January 21, 2016). See also Merriman,
The “Rough Wooings:” Mary Queen of Scots, 1542–1551 (East Linton:
Tuckwell Press, 2000).
50. T.N.A. SP 1/190/220 (LP, XIX-I, 1019); LP, XIX-ii, 1, 35.
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  169

51. LP, XIX-I, 981, 1020, XIX-ii, 136, 167 187, 195, 292, 324, XIX-I, 1020.
52. T.N.A. (LP, XIX-I, 979); T.N.A. SP 1/190/156 (LP, XIX-I, 980); T.N.A
SP 1/190/220 (LP, XIX-I,1019); BL Lansdowne MS 1236, art. 7, fo.
9v (LP, XIX-I, 1029); T.N.A. SP 1/191/53 (LP, XIX-ii, 39); BL Add.
MS 27402, fs. 39v-40r (LP, XIX-ii, 58); T.N.A. SP 1/191/166 (LP,
XIX-ii, 136).
53. BL Lansdowne MS 1236, art. 7, f. 9v; LP, XIX-I, 1029.
54. T.N.A. SP 1/190/155r (LP, XIX-I, 979); T.N.A. SP1/190/156 (LP, XIX-
I, 980), T.N.A. SP 1/190/220 (LP, XIX-I, 980); T.N.A. SP 1/190/220
(LP, XIX-I,1019); BL Lansdowne MS 1236, art. 7, fo. 9v (LP, XIX-I,
1029); T.N.A. SP 1/191/53 (LP, XIX-ii, 39); BL Add. MS 27402, fs.
39v-40r (LP, XIX-ii, 58); T.N.A. SP 1/191/166 (LP, XIX-ii, 136).
55. For further information, see John Carmi Parsons, “The Queen’s
Intercession in Thirteeth-Century England,” Power of the Weak: Studies
on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean
(Urbana, University of Illinois, 1995), pp. 147–177; Paul Strohm,
Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth Century Texts
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 95–104.
56. LP, II, 3204; CSP Ven, II, 887. For the ballad, see Agnes Sttrickland,
Lives of the Queens of England, from the Norman Conquest, 12 vols.
(London: H. Colburn, 1840–1848), IV, 108–109; In 1537, joining
those who hoped that Jane would support the Catholic faith, Chapuys
wrote that she had knelt before the king requesting him to restore the
abbeys. Since (see Chap. 3), her jointure had income from some dis-
solved monasteries, this statement of Chapuys, like so many others, sim-
ply repeated unverifiable rumors. See LP, XI, 860.
57. LP, IV, 3105.
58. LP, XVI, 660, 678, 1391(18), XX-ii, 909(15), 1067(40). For the dry
stamp, see David Starkey, The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and
Politics (London: George Philip, 1985), p. 136.
59. Cédric Michon, “Pomp and Circumstances: State Prelates under Francis
I and Henry VIII,” “The Contending Kingdoms” France and England:
1420–1700, ed. Glenn Richardson (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), pp.
79–84; Francis Lambert,. The Sum of Christianity Gathered out Almost
All Places of Scripture, trans. Tristram Revel (London: Robert Redman,
1536). Jane Seymour’s almoner was Robert Aldrich, whom Henry ele-
vated to the bishopric of Carlisle probably in 1536. As Henry had long
been his patron, it seems unlikely that Jane had much influence, if any, on
his elevation. See Angelo Louisa, “Aldrich, Robert (1488/1489–1556),
bishop of Carlisle,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed May 13,
2016).
60. LP, I, 2944, II, 1511, 3018, III, 967, IV, 652.
170  R.M. Warnicke

61. For Erasmus in England, see Retha M. Warnicke, Wicked Women of Tudor

England: Queens, Aristocrats, and Commoners (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2012), pp. 165–174. For the books possessed by Henry
VIII’s wives, see James Carley, The Books of King Henry VIII and his
Wives (London: British Library, 2004).
62. R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson, trans., The Correspondence of
Erasmus, 15 vols. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974–2012),
II, 298, VI, 63, VIII, 10, X, 417, XII, 297–299.
63. Sybil Jack, “Wolsey, Thomas (1470-71-1530), royal minister, archbishop
of York, and cardinal,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February
9, 2016); for Lincoln, see BL, Cotton Vitellius MS Bv, f. 8 (LP, IV, 995);
William Forrest, The History of Grisild the Second: A Narrative, in Verse,
of the Divorce of Queen Katharine of Aragon, ed. W. D. Macray (London:
Whittinghead and Wilkins, 1875), pp. 27–28.
64. LP, III, 684, 704; Richard Rex, “Fisher, John [St. John Fisher] c.1469–
1535), bishop of Rochester, cardinal and martyr,” ODNB, www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed February 8, 2016); LP, V, 308.
65. D.G. Newcombe, “Booth, Charles (d. 1535), bishop of Hereford,”
ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 8, 2016).
66. LP, I, 2879, III, 704, VI, 1541, X, 141, 410, 429, 479: E. J. Newell,
Llandaff (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1902),
pp. 116–127; Historical Manuscripts Commission, The Manuscripts
of his Grace, the Duke of Rutland, G.C.B. Preserved at Belvoir Castle, 4
vols. (London: HMSO, 1888–1905), I, 21. See also, Giles Tremlett,
Catherine of Aragon, Henry’s Spanish Queen: A Biography (London:
Faber and Faber, 2010), pp. 259, 421–422.
67. For the entire list, see Gilbert Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1941), p. 293; LP, V, 308; Richard Rex, “Clerk, John
(1481/2–1541), diplomat, bishop of Bath and Wells,” ODNB, www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed February 8, 2016); D. G. Newcombe, “Tunstal
[Tunstall], William (1474–1559), bishop of Durham,” ODNB, www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed February 8, 2016); Andrew Chibi, “Standish,
Henry (c). 475–1535), bishop of Asaph,”ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com
(accessed February 8, 2016; Felicity Heal, “West, Nicholas, bishop of Ely
and diplomat,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 8, 2016);
John Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1541–1857. Exeter Diocese, ed.
Joyce Horn, (London, 1964), British History Online http://www.british-
history.ac.uk/fasti-ecclesiae/1300-1541, vol. 9 (accessed March 19, 2016).
68. For more detail about theirs and Anne’s beliefs, see Retha M. Warnicke,
The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn; Family Politics at the Court of Henry
VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 25–27,
109–110; LP, VII, 1026 (20). See also LP, VII, 464, 664 and Maria
 5  GOVERNANCE AND PATRONAGE  171

Dowling, ed., “William Latymer’s Chronickille of Anne Bulleyne,”

Camden Miscellany XXX, fourth series, vol. 39 (London: Royal Historical
Society, University College, 1990), p. 57. Anne’s father in 1533 did con-
tact Erasmus to write a treatise for her on preparation for death. See LP,
VII, 1485. For Katherine’s support of monks and friars, see Tremlett,
Catherine, pp. 393–394, 401–402. For the prioress, see LP, X, 383.
69. Warnicke, Anne Boleyn, pp. 107–113, 153, 159. See also LP, III, 1233,
X, 371; John Cox, ed., The Works of Thomas Cranmer, Parker Society, 2
vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844), I, viii. For some of
her reading materials, see James Carley, “Her moost lovyng and fryndely
brother sendeth gretyng: Anne Boleyn’s Manuscripts and Their Sources,”
Illuminating the Book: Makers and Interpreters: Essays in Honour of Janet
Bakehouse, ed. Michelle Brown and Scot McKendrick (London and
Toronto: The British Library and University of Toronto, 1998), pp. 261–
280; Dowling, “Latymer Chronickille,” p. 62.
70. Dowling, “Latymer Chronickille,” p. 59; Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas
Cranmer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), pp. 43–48, 82–83;
Henry Jenkyns, The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D.D., Archbishop of
Canterbury, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833), I, 1, 55,
132–133; Felicity Heal, “Goodrich [Goodrych], Thomas (1494–1554),
bishop of Ely and lord chancellor,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com
(accessed February 11, 2016).
71. Susan Wabuda, “Shaxton, Nicholas (c. 1485–1556), bishop of Salisbury,”
ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 11, 2016); Wabuda,
“Latimer, Hugh (1485–1555), bishop of Worcester, preacher, and prot-
estant martyr,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 11,
2016); LP, VII, 29, 30, 32, 89, 464; X, 942; XI, 117. John. Cox, ed.
Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer (Cambridge:
Parker Society, 1843), pp. 283–284, 292–293, 460–462; Jenkyns,
Remains, I, 125, 151; see also Alec Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry VIII:
Evangelicals in the Early English Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003).
72. D.G. Newcombe, “Skip, John, bishop of Hereford,” ODNB, www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed February 11, 2016); LP, X, 910.
73. Janel Mueller, ed., Katherine Parr: Complete Works and Correspondence
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 1–33; Susan James,
Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 1999),
200–207.
74. David Crane, “English Translations of the Imitatio in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries,” Recusant History, 13 (1975–1976), 79–100;
Mueller, Complete Works, pp. 197–365. This volume includes introduction
and complete, annotated copies of the queen’s book and the translation.
172  R.M. Warnicke

75. F. Rose Troup,“Two Book Bills of Katherine Parr,“The Library, third

series, 2 (1911), 40–48.
76.  Malcolm Kitch, “Day, George (c.1502–1556), bishop of Chichester,”
ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 18, 2016).
77. For female classical scholars see, for example, contemporary comments by
William Barker, The Nobility of Women, ed. R. Warwick Bond (London:
Roxburgh Club, 1908), pp. 153–155; Mueller, Complete Works, p. 5;
Nicholas Orme, “The Education of the Courtier,” English Court Culture
in the Later Middle Ages, ed. V. J. Scattergood, and J. W. Sherhorne
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983), p. 80; Lawrence Ryan, Roger
Ascham (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962), p. 103; J. A. Giles,
The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, Now First Collected and Revised, With
a Life of the Author, 3 vols. in 4 (New York: AMS, 1965), I-I, 89; Alan
Vos, ed., Letters of Roger Ascham, trans. Maurice Hatch and Alvin Vos
(New York: Peter Lang, 1989), p. 75. Henry Foley, ed., Records of the
English Province of the Society of Jesus. Historic Facts Illustrative of the
Labours and Sufferings of Its Members in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries, 7 volumes in 8 (London: Burns and Oates, 1875–1883), II,
445.
78. Mueller, Complete Works, pp. 425–619, for introduction and reprint of
Lamentation. For quotations, see pp. 202, 435–436, 450, 456–457, 484.
79. John Foxe, The Ecclesiastical History, Containing the Actes and
Monuments (London: John Day, 1570), pp. 1422–1425 (STC 11223).
80. For the details of his examination of Foxe’s tale, see Thomas Freeman,
“One Survived: The Account of Katherine Parr in Foxe’s ‘Book of
Martyrs,’” Henry VIII and the Court: Art, Politics, and Performance, ed.
Thomas Betteridge and Suzannah Lipscomb (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013),
pp. 235–252,
81. BL Lansdowne MS 1236, art 8, f. 11 (LP, XXI-1, 279); for the original
letter at Cambridge, see Mueller, Complete Works, 115.
82. C.S. Knighton, “Thirlby, Thomas (c.1500–1570), bishop of Westminster
and Ely,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 18, 2016).
83. Malcolm Kitch, “Day, George (c.1502–1556), bishop of Chichester,”
ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 20, 2016).
84. Ralph Houlbrooke, “Parkhurst, John (1511?–1575), bishop of Norwich,”
ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed February 20, 2016).
85. Mueller, Complete Works, pp. 12, 75–78, 78 n. 7; Ryan, Ascham, 103;
Giles, Works of Ascham, I-I, 160–162.
 CHAPTER 6

Revels and Celebrations

This chapter examines the roles of Tudor queens at royal revels and cel-
ebrations with mainly secular festivities, including those occurring on
religious holidays. Before turning to them, it first provides information
about the “Articles Ordained by King Henry VII for the Regulation of
His Household.” It then presents a few traditional welcoming ceremo-
nies, called entries, produced by lord mayors and aldermen for royal
and noble personages on their visits to their towns and cities, especially
London, and highlights the greeting by that city’s leaders of Katherine of
Aragon as princess of Wales. Chapter 2 has already described the entries
of Elizabeth of York and Anne Boleyn through the city because they
formed essential parts of the coronation tradition, even for Katherine
of Aragon’s shared one in 1509, although Londoners had previously
welcomed her as the princess of Wales. The present chapter next pro-
vides information about the queens’ roles at special tournaments and
war games and at the banquets that often accompanied them, including
analyses of the feast day of St. George and the festivities of May Day. It
further discusses the queens’ presence at the rituals, revels, and entertain-
ments customarily produced at court during religious holidays, especially
the 12 days of Christmas, including the New Year’s gift giving and the
Epiphany or Twelfth Night traditions. Finally, this chapter briefly turns
to two occasions when the queen’s interaction with diplomats and guests
had international ramifications. The examination of these topics involves
only a few significant examples because covering each of them com-
pletely would require separate book-length studies.

© The Author(s) 2017 173

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_6
174  R.M. Warnicke

In 1790, the Society of Antiquaries published the above-cited

“Articles” in a book with other ordinances for the English court.
Tradition has credited Margaret Tudor, countess of Richmond, with cre-
ating the “Articles,” which Henry VII supposedly approved in 1494.1
However, Kay Staniland, who studied the manuscripts of the 1790 pub-
lication, determined that Henry actually ordained the “Articles” in 1493
and that his mother did not write them. Rather, he and his officials seem
to have simply repeated earlier royal ordinances.2 It is noteworthy that
the “Articles” do not refer to a queen dowager, that they provide ritu-
als for a queen consort, but with the qualifier “if there is one,” and that
they mention the king’s mother and his brothers. Obviously they did
not originate in the reign of Henry, an only child who had married his
queen privately at least by December 1485. It is likely that they can be
traced back to Edward IV’s reign, when his mother, Cecily Plantagenet,
duchess of York, who, like Lady Richmond, was not the queen dowa-
ger, often attended court. At that time, Edward had brothers but had
not yet married. Therefore, the “Articles” could not, as Arlene Okerlund
has claimed, represent Lady Richmond’s dominant role at court and
her “obsessive, manipulative personality.”3 Instead, this new identifica-
tion further decreases the evidence that she interfered negatively in her
daughter-in-law’s reign.
The “Articles” have relevance to this chapter’s topic because besides
regulating the activities of personal staff, such as servants in the privy
chamber and bed chamber, they also contain directions for the day of
estate in the king’s great chamber or guard room (after the hall, the larg-
est room in the palace) that set out a hierarchical status and ritual for the
royal family. For example, a baron, a knight banneret, or a knight bachelor
should bring basins and ewers of water to the king and queen for wash-
ing their hands, but only one of the esquires of the king’s mother should
perform that duty for her. Furthermore, the queen’s cloth of estate should
always hang lower than the king’s. As this chapter proceeds to the various
royal events, the differentiation in status set out in the “Articles” will be
emphasized: first the king; next the queen; and third, on the same level,
the king’s mother and his heir. By presenting the last two as equals, the
“Articles” provided them recognition as princess and prince.4
Now turning to Katherine’s arrival in England in early October
1501, the crown’s officials had already developed plans for her recep-
tion. Elizabeth of York and Thomas Howard, future second duke of
Norfolk and the lord treasurer, had the responsibility to select some
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  175

of the queen’s ladies, who would accompany a number of designated

noblewomen to greet the princess at Ambresbury on October 25.
Subsequently, on November 4, Henry and Arthur met privately with
her at Dogmersfeld; afterward, the king returned to Richmond Palace
to inform his consort about their visit with the princess. Six days later,
the king and queen moved in their separate barges to Baynard’s Castle
in London, planning to see part of Katherine’s entry and to observe
secretly her marriage to Arthur at St. Paul’s Cathedral.5
The history of English civic entries, like Katherine’s, goes back to
the thirteenth century, when documents first survive with evidence of
citizens welcoming to their towns notable persons on their initial vis-
its that were modeled after ancient Roman triumphs. One of the earli-
est English entries on record occurred in 1236 at London, where the
lord mayor, aldermen, and principal citizens, dressed in robes of embroi-
dered silk, greeted Eleanor of Provence at her arrival for her wedding to
Henry III. The reception contained no pageantry, for poetry and music
first appeared in 1298 in honor of Edward I’s victory at Falkirk.6 R.
Malcolm Smuts has related that the entries contained both secular and
religious elements. In their secular dimension, they provided an oppor-
tunity for the townsfolk to observe a public procession that emphasized
civic and royal hierarchies, from the town’s liveried freemen to the alder-
men and lord mayor, and then to the “resplendent” royal court with its
“half deified” king. Those witnessing the event usually cheered when the
procession appeared, an indication that entries seem to have reinforced
the “emotional bonds” of the various communities, both inspiring and
drawing them together. Moreover, they represented the tradition that
their subjects expected monarchs to rule with “unforced” obedience,
as expressed, for example, in nobles’ positive acclamations to monarchs’
accessions in coronation ceremonies. The commoners’ reactions also vali-
dated a reciprocal relationship that exchanged their freely given loyalty
and obedience for the royal promise of justice, protection, charity, and
patronage—the latter, of course, for the elite. Second, the religious ele-
ment embodied a “public exchange of blessings,” with the monarch call-
ing for God to bless his people and they in turn responding with, “God
save the king.”7
Because Henry wanted a lavish reception prepared for Katherine of
Aragon, a member of an illustrious dynasty, he and his councilors urged
the Londoners to do more than present a few singing angels or virgins,
as they had done at Elizabeth’s coronation entry. Instead, he asked city
176  R.M. Warnicke

officials to celebrate the marriage with a “splendid Burgundian-style

festival.” Henry appointed Sir Reginald Bray and George Neville, Lord
Abergavenny, to supervise the work of the London pageant master, who
based the entry pageants on the “Triumph of Honor” by Jean Molinet,
a former councilor of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy. Molinet’s
poem, which actually honored that duke’s death, recalled the “golden
age” when the Burgundian and English courts were related by the mar-
riage of Edward IV’s sister, Margaret, to Philip’s son, Charles the Bold.
The pageants for the splendidly dressed Katherine, who rode into
London on a mule, took the form of a “medieval dream-vision,” mov-
ing her representative in the pageants from “earth through the spheres of
the cosmos to the throne of Honour above the firmament.” At London
Bridge on November 12, the poetry and action enacted Katherine’s
ascension from the “earthly Castle of Policy” toward the second pag-
eant in which “Virtue and Noblesse” would guide her on the path to the
throne of “Honour.” The third and fourth pageants showed her moving
upward through the sphere of the moon to that of the sun. As Gordon
Kipling has observed, however, the pageants’ messages indicated that her
astronomical powers had diminished by the fourth pageant, causing her
to require Arthur’s assistance (represented by Arturus, the brightest star
in the north half of earth’s sky) to ascend through the sphere of God
the Father into the fifth pageant and then to resume rising to the sixth
pageant. In this last pageant, presented at the Cheap near the little con-
duit, Katherine sat next to Arthurus, as Hesperus (Venus, the evening
star), and beside “Honour,” himself, on “a throne fixed on the external
foundation of the seven virtues.” It presented an astrological conjunction
of two unequal figures, for the celestial brightness of Arthur as Arturus
excelled that of Katherine as Hesperus.8
Members of the royal family went privately to the home of William
Geoffrey, haberdasher, from which they watched the fifth and sixth pag-
eants. The king, the prince, and some noblemen viewed them from one
chamber, and the queen, the king’s mother, and his elder daughter,
Margaret, among other ladies, observed them from a different chamber.
The next day, Saturday, Katherine, housed at the bishop’s palace near St.
Paul’s, traveled by horse litter to Baynard’s Castle to visit the king and
especially the queen, whom she had not yet met. There they had “goodly
communication and dancing” until late in the evening, when she
returned to the bishop’s palace. That same night, Henry and Elizabeth
moved to Lord Abergavenny’s home near St. Paul’s. Before the wedding
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  177

began on Sunday, they privately entered the cathedral to view the cer-
emony from a secret latticed closet high in the cathedral’s vault. The
king’s mother and some other dignitaries joined them there. The royal
couple’s high royal status prevented them from officially appearing at
the wedding ritual and banquet, in which the prince and princess held
first place. Henry, but not Elizabeth, accompanied Arthur when he went
to be bedded down with Katherine. The following day, Monday, the
king’s mother hosted a dinner for the princess’s Spanish attendants at her
Coldharbour House.9
On Tuesday, November 16, Arthur and Katherine moved to
Baynard’s Castle. There, Elizabeth of York, who selected some of her
ladies to attend the princess, accompanied her new daughter-in-law to
Westminster in the queen’s barge, which followed after the king’s barge
in which Henry and Arthur traveled. Until November 26, they remained
at Westminster, observing various tournaments as well as Burgundian-
like entertainments with disguised performers appearing on pageant cars.
Often the king’s mother and the royal children, Henry and Margaret,
joined them at these events. Five-year-old Mary attended only the first
tournament, called the wedding tournament.10 On the 26th, the same
royal party, except for the king’s daughters, rode on barges to Richmond
Palace, where the Spanish visitors and other gentlemen enjoyed deer
hunting at its park. Finally, on Monday, November 29, the princess’s
Spanish attendants took leave of her and the prince, the king, queen, and
the king’s mother. They carried letters and messages to Ferdinand only
from Henry, Elizabeth, and the newlyweds.11
The several days in which the royal family celebrated the wedding
of Arthur and Katherine that included her entry, three disguisings, the
martial competitions, and the relaxed atmosphere at the magnificent
Burgundian-like palace of Richmond provided the celebrants and their
guests with the traditional activities that usually accompanied the mar-
riage of a prince or king to a foreign-born bride.12 As related in Chap.
2, no Tudor queen consort, even Anne of Cleves, received the reception
and honor offered the princess when she arrived to marry the prince.
Entries into cities and towns did not always form parts of grander cel-
ebrations. Evidence has survived of Londoners welcoming Jane Seymour,
Anne of Cleves, and Katherine Howard as they passed in barges on the
Thames toward London Bridge on their way to Westminster. Normally
first entries occurred in processions on land through towns and cities,
but when members of the royal family stayed at Greenwich Palace and
178  R.M. Warnicke

went to Westminster Palace in their barges for the first time, Londoners
welcomed them as they moved toward London Bridge. On June 7,
1536, herald and chronicler Charles Wriothesley noted that Henry and
Jane rode in a great barge from Greenwich to Westminster, following
his lords, who traveled in barges that went before them. As they passed
by the ships in the Thames, each one shot off its guns. Next, Eustace
Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, stationed in a tent on shore and
obviously delighted that the queen whom he had called a concubine no
longer reigned, sent toward the king’s barge two boats with musicians
who played for the royal couple as they passed by. When they reached
the Tower of London, gunmen shot off 400 pieces of ordinance, and
on the Tower walls toward the water side hung great streamers and ban-
ners. Wriothesley described the event as a “goodly sight to behold.” Six
months later, on December 22, because the Thames had frozen over,
Wriothesley again observed Henry and Jane, as well as Mary, the king’s
daughter, in procession, this time riding horseback from Westminster
Palace, accompanied by a great many lords, ladies, and gentlemen,
through London to Greenwich; the lord mayor with all the aldermen in
their order rode before the royal train. The streets, graveled from Temple
Bar to the footbridge in Southwark, contained decorations of rich gold
and arras. In Fleet Street stood the four orders of friars wearing copes
of gold and holding crosses, candlesticks, and censers to cense the king
and queen. John Stokesley, bishop of London, the abbot of Waltham,
the abbot of the Crutched Friars of Tower Hill, and all of St. Paul’s choir
waited at the west door of the cathedral in rich copes, intending also to
cense the king and queen, and from the north door of St. Paul’s church-
yard to the foot bridge stood two priests from every parish church in
London holding their best crosses, candlesticks, and censers. Moreover,
all the city craftsmen in their best liveries with hoods on their shoulders
watched the procession that Wriothesley again described as a “goodly
sight to behold.”13
In February 1540, the chronicler later observed Henry’s and Anne of
Cleves’s water entry into Westminster from Greenwich. First, Henry’s
household went in barges before him, with his guard following him in
another barge. Next came the queen in her barge, with her ladies and her
household servants following her in other barges. The lord mayor and
aldermen of London met them in one barge, followed by the chief crafts-
men of the city in their barges, which were all richly hung with escutch-
eons and banners of every occupation—the mercer’s, for example, with
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  179

rich cloth of gold. From Greenwich to the Tower, all the ships in the
Thames shot guns as the king and queen passed by. And when the royal
procession reached the Tower, there were shot within it more than 1,000
chambers of ordinance that resounded like thunder. Afterward, the royal
couple passed under London Bridge to Westminster, the mayor and
craftsmen following them until they saw their barges docked. Later, the
French ambassador, Charles de Marillac, who reported that the ships
and craftsmen of London had triumphantly met Henry and Anne as they
went to Westminster, described the entry as more honorable than the
king’s initial Greenwich greeting of her.14
Despite Marillac’s opinion that Anne of Cleves’s river entry was more
honorable than her initial reception, clearly the Londoners’ welcome
of both Jane and Anne of Cleves seems to have been far less lavish, at
least based on Wriothesley’s and the ambassador’s comments, than the
river entries associated with the coronations of Elizabeth of York and
Anne Boleyn. In 1541, Wriothesley later also described the river entry
of Katherine Howard to Westminster, which did not greatly differ from
that of Anne of Cleves. This chapter will now turn to another entry of
Henry’s fifth queen, which follows the more usual procedure on land.15
On Henry’s and Katherine’s procession north, hoping to greet his
nephew, James V, at York, Marillac, who accompanied them, reported on
August 12, 1541, that at the king’s first visit to a town, its inhabitants,
dressed in ordinary clothes and riding on little geldings, preceded the
royal company onto their main street, which they had previously grave-
led. Notable English lords led the royal train: the king astride a great
horse; the queen; his daughter, Mary; and some female attendants. Sixty
or eighty archers with drawn bows brought up the rear. The royal train
then moved to the lodgings prepared for them. Marillac claimed his
description reflected the entry at Stamford, the one three days before at
Lincoln, and would the next one at York on the 25th.16
Actually, an English account indicates somewhat more elaborate activi-
ties. On August 9, when Lincoln’s inhabitants learned that the king and
his court had stopped to dine at Temple Brewer, some seven miles from
their city, the lord mayor, burgesses, and commoners, along with the
gentlemen and yeomen of Lynsey, which lay near the king’s dining tent,
made preparations for the upcoming royal entry into Lincoln while the
archdeacon, dean, and clergy of its cathedral rode out to greet the king.
After giving a Latin oration and presenting him with a gift of victual, the
churchmen then returned to the cathedral. In preparation for their entry,
180  R.M. Warnicke

the king and queen rode to their private tent near Lincoln and changed
their apparel from green and crimson velvet to cloth of gold and silver.
Behind their tent lay one for the ladies, and some distance off, a station
where the six children of honor, dressed in cloth of gold and crimson vel-
vet, and the horses of estate waited for the procession to begin. When
the king and queen appeared on horseback, the herald, the gentlemen
pensioners, and other gentlemen led the train up to Lincoln according
to the traditional order; after them came George, Lord Hastings, bearing
the sword, the king, his horse led by his master of the horse, the chil-
dren of honor on great coursers, Thomas Manners, earl of Rutland, the
queen’s chamberlain, the queen, her horse of estate, all the ladies, the
captain of the guard, and the guard and the commoners. They found
waiting for them at the outskirts of Lincoln the city’s recorder with coun-
try gentlemen on horseback and the lord mayor and his brethren on foot,
who knelt and cried twice, “Jesus save your grace.” Next, the recorder
read and offered to the king an oration in English, which he handed to
Thomas Howard, third duke of Norfolk, and a gift of victual. The lord
mayor presented the sword and mace and marched beside Clarenceux,
king of arms, while his civic brethren and the burgesses, followed by the
gentlemen of the country and knights on horseback, led the royal train
into Lincoln. All the church bells rang out as the procession passed by.
At the cathedral’s entrance, the mayor and brethren drew apart, as John
Longland, bishop of Lincoln, and the choir with the cross awaited the
royal couple inside the cathedral. The king and queen dismounted at its
west end, where a carpet and stools and cushions of cloth of gold, with
crucifixes on them, had been placed for their use. When Henry knelt
down, the bishop emerged wearing his miter, gave the crucifix to the king
and queen to kiss, and censed them. Afterward, they entered the church
and moved under the canopy to the sacrament, saying their prayers while
the choir sang Te Deum. Finally, all retired to their lodgings for the night
and departed for Gainsborough the next day.17
Now, returning to the marriage celebrations of Arthur and Katherine
of Aragon in 1501, this chapter next describes the first of three disguis-
ings that William Cornish of the chapel royal produced and presented
at Westminster Hall, and then addresses its significance. In the first dis-
guising, three pageant cars formed the basic structures for its unfolding
entertainment. Four animals—a silver lion, a golden lion, a hart with
gilt horns, and an ibex—led a pageant car with a castle atop it into the
hall. Two men enclosed in each of the four animals, one in the front and
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  181

one in the back, and showing only their legs that had been decorated to
conform to the looks of their artificial hosts, pulled it close to the king
and queen, who sat under their cloths of estate. Eight disguised ladies
looked out the castle’s windows, and children, appareled like maidens,
sang in its four turrets. Next arrived a second pageant car with a ship that
the master and mariners, dressed in Spanish clothing, anchored beside
the castle. From it descended Hope and Desire, the ambassadors of the
knights of the Mount of Love, who sought the ladies’ permission for the
knights to woo them. When the ladies refused the offer, the ambassadors
warned that the knights would respond to their rebuke with an assault
on their castle. At that moment, a third pageant car entered the hall, car-
rying a Mount of Love from which emerged eight knights, who attacked
the castle, causing the ladies, four dressed in the Spanish style and four in
the English style, to surrender and agree to dance with their assaulters.
After the departure of the pageant cars, the prince danced with his aunt,
Lady Cecily, Katherine with one of her Spanish ladies, and Henry, duke
of York, with his sister, Lady Margaret.18
Sydney Anglo has pointed out that this disguising deserves recogni-
tion as an innovation in English entertainment. While some elements
of it might be found earlier, this was the first royal entertainment that
included a combination of music, castles, and other structures on pag-
eant cars or “mobile stages,” dialogue in the form of a “dramatic argu-
ment,” mock combat, and a well-orchestrated final dance scene. All
available evidence, furthermore, suggests that this was the first appear-
ance of a street pageant car in a banquet hall. Anglo claimed that this
English disguising, which Continental rulers had already presented in
their courts, was Henry VII’s attempt to update his court entertain-
ment. Whatever political implications the disguising might have had for
the court, according to Anglo, it was more significant that its splendid
actions and dialogue offered an opportunity for “a prestige of display”
to the newest member of the family and to her Spanish attendants. It
also provided, perhaps more importantly than any other motive, excel-
lent entertainment for the king’s guests. The entertainment at Henry
VIII’s coronation discussed in Chap. 2, had contained some of these ear-
lier Burgundian elements.19
As to the tournaments that also occurred at Katherine of Aragon’s
wedding celebrations in 1501 and 1509, Henry VIII subsequently
showed great enjoyment in competing in war games while his father had
remained more comfortable sitting in the stands as an observer. At least
182  R.M. Warnicke

four kinds of war games existed in Tudor England: the jousts in which
two horsemen, holding lances with blunted tips, rode at high speed
toward each other down the tilt, a barrier adopted in the fifteenth cen-
tury to prevent the horses from careening into each other; the tourneys
that involved groups of mounted knights, armed with rebated swords
and other weapons, fighting with each other in a confined area; run-
ning at the ring, which required a structure with a crosspiece from which
hung a ring that a horseman attempted to pierce with his lance while
riding at full speed. As to the fourth kind, fighting at the barriers, on
May 29, 1510, the Spanish ambassador, Luis Caroz, informed Ferdinand
that almost every day of the week, the young Henry VIII amused him-
self with jousts, tournaments on foot, and running at the ring. Caroz
explained about the barriers that the two competitors on foot wore
breastplates and a particular kind of helmet. They first threw lances with
blunt iron points at each other, then fought with two-handed swords,
each of them dealing twelve strokes. A barrier as high as their waists sep-
arated them to prevent their seizing one another and wrestling.20
The role of queens at tournaments was basically that of specta-
tor, although they could be called on to deliver the prizes. Over time,
women’s attendance, especially at the major tournaments, had led to the
introduction of pageantry, music, and disguises in imitation of romance
literature, but the war games basically showcased the valor and athleti-
cism of the competitors. The king’s participation also offered him an
opportunity to use the event to display the monarch as the liege lord
and the source of political power.21 Only a sampling of the many tourna-
ments can be offered here.
In 1511, Henry decided to hold jousts on February 12 and 13 to
honor Katherine of Aragon, who had just been churched, as the mother
of their newly born but short-lived heir, also named Henry. Four knights
participating as chevaliers with French names—Henry VIII as Coeur
Loyall (Heart Loyal), Sir Edward Neville as Valliaunt Desyre (Valiant
Desire), William Courtenay, earl of Devon, as Bone Valoyr (Good Valor),
and Sir Thomas Knyvet as Bone Espoier (Good Hope)—challenged all
comers to the jousts.22 Before they began, Henry ordered entertain-
ment for the queen at Westminster Palace. Into the chamber appeared a
pageant car, carrying a forest with many trees, flowers, and other plants
made of green velvet. In it stood six foresters wearing coats and hoods of
green velvet by whom lay many spears. Before a gold castle in the mid-
dle of this forest sat a gentleman making a garland of roses. Two great
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  183

beasts, a lion clothed in damask gold and an antelope in damask silver

with horns and tusks of gold, pulled the forest into the chamber. On
either side of these animals, who were tied to the forest with great chains
of gold, sat a lady richly appareled. When the forest rested before the
queen and the foresters blew their horns, it opened on all sides, and from
it emerged the four challengers on horseback, each armed with a spear.
And so the jousts were announced.23
Eight defenders appeared on that day and fourteen on the second day
to fight the challengers. All the defenders, who first obtained the queen’s
permission to participate, wore disguises, some, for instance, dressed in
black to appear as pilgrims. At each day’s competition ended, the queen,
the recipient of the garland made of 6 dozen roses, awarded the prizes of
200 crowns each on the first day to Sir Thomas Knyvet for the challeng-
ers and Richard Blount for the defenders, and on the second day to the
king for the challengers and to Lord Edmund Howard for the defend-
ers. Then “for the King’s ladies’ sake,” “Coeur Loyall” ran courses with
Thomas, Lord Howard (future third duke of Norfolk), and Charles
Brandon, duke of Suffolk.24
Later after supper, the king joined the queen and other members of
the court to hear the gentlemen of the chapel royal singing. Minstrels
then played music for the lords and ladies to dance while the king
secretly departed. A little while later, the trumpeters began to play, sum-
moning a pageant car with a garden of pleasure from which emerged a
gentleman richly clothed, who announced that the garden contained
lords and ladies, who pleaded for royal permission to amuse them. When
the queen granted their wish, they brought near her the splendid pag-
eant car, every post or pillar of which was covered with gold. On it was
an arbor with trees, vines, and pleasant flowers of many colors in which
stood six ladies, dressed in white satin and green garments with the ini-
tials H and K in gold. There too stood six men, appareled in purple
satin, also with the initials H and K in gold. Four of the six men, includ-
ing the king, were the original joust challengers.” 25
The lords and ladies then descended from the arbor on the pag-
eant car to dance while servants took it to another part of the room to
await the dancers’ reentry into it for their departure. Suddenly, when
some rude people rushed to grab parts of the pageant car, neither the
lord steward nor other officials could stop them without injuring them;
consequently, the mob destroyed the arbor on the pageant car. Later,
after the dancing had ended, the king offered to the ladies and other
184  R.M. Warnicke

notable visitors the letters H and R on the pageant garments. When

the commoners heard his offer, they stripped the king and his compan-
ions of their hosens and doublets and even attacked the ladies. Finally,
the king’s guard arrived and forced them to cease their despoiling.
Henry, Katherine, and their attendants subsequently left for his pres-
ence chamber, where they enjoyed a great banquet and laughed at all
those insults, since all that was taken away was but for honor and largess;
thus this entertainment ended with mirth and gladness. At this disguis-
ing, a London shipman snatched some of the letters, which he sold to a
goldsmith for ₤3, 14s. 8d.; clearly the garments had great value. Hall’s
chronicle does not explain how and why the commoners had obtained
entrance into the chamber, or even if it was a normal procedure to per-
mit the presence of lower-class observers.26
This chapter will later examine more closely the religious feast days on
which secular celebrations occurred, but it places one Epiphany enter-
tainment here because it seemed to signal a new form of masking. On
the evening of Epiphany 1512, the king and eleven other men, who
wore disguises after the “manner of Italy,” performed in an entertain-
ment called a masque that was heretofore unknown in the realm. The
masked men wore long and broad garments, “wrought all with gold,
with visors and caps of gold.” Six gentlemen disguised in silk and bear-
ing torches accompanied the men in masks. When the masked men asked
the ladies observing them to dance, some of them accepted, but others
“refused, because it was not a thing commonly seen.” After the maskers
danced and communed or talked informally with the ladies, they took
their leave, and the queen and her attendants also departed. This seems
to have been the first occasion at the English court when masked indi-
viduals danced with women in the audience.27
While some scholars have argued that this apparently new entertain-
ment evolved into the masque of the late sixteenth and seventeenth
century, Sydney Anglo warned that since in the early Tudor period the
language describing entertainments remained fluid, caution should be
used in identifying any one form as the dominant factor in later devel-
opments. Contemporary words, which referred to entertainments as
combats, dances, disguising, and masques, were often interchanged;
what modern scholars call a masque Hall’s chronicle might have iden-
tified in separate accounts as both a disguising and a masque. Some of
these entertainments were also combined together in performances, as
occurred in the 1511 tribute to Katherine of Aragon. More attention,
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  185

Anglo claimed, should be given to the reasons for Henry VIII’s use of
the new revel. Perhaps, like Henry VII’s disguising of 1501, the second
Tudor king wanted his court to keep up with European styles and wished
also for himself to be viewed as “fashionable.”28
Many of the male performers in the court’s various aristocratic
entertainments longed for membership in the prestigious Order of the
Garter, inaugurated by Edward III in 1348, which usually met annually
at Windsor on April 23, the feast day of St. George, England’s patron
saint. The Order, which was an attempt by Edward to revive Arthur’s
Round Table, consisted of him and twenty-five knight of his choosing;
membership in it “was an exceptional honour, making the recipient the
companion of kings.” Upon a vacancy, the knight companions nomi-
nated candidates for the king’s final selection. The Garter chapter did-
not always take place at Windsor on the saint’s feast day. In May 1510,
for example, Henry VIII ordered it held at Greenwich and in 1540 at
Westminster. He, like his father, also did not faithfully attend the cer-
emony, occasionally sending deputies in his place.29
In 1358, Edward III first selected some female members, among
them Queen Philippa, but they had only an associate role without full
membership, since they lacked the power to nominate other women to
the Order and did not attend separate female chapters. Indeed, no rule
ordained that a definite number of women should be selected or that a
replacement should be chosen when one of them died. Instead of wear-
ing purple robes like the knights companion, they dressed in special scar-
let gowns with trains and wore the garter on their left arms rather than
on their legs like the men. They and some other women, mostly wives or
relatives of the knight companions, attended the chapel, where a splen-
did pew was constructed for the queen for the divine services when the
men’s feast and chapter had ended.30
After Edward III’s reign, from time to time, other kings also selected
female members. Edward IV, for example, chose several ladies, among
them in 1477 three relatives named Elizabeth: his consort; his daugh-
ter; and his sister, Elizabeth de la Pole, duchess of Suffolk. In the Tudor
period, the women’s appearance at these ceremonies declined. In 1488,
when Henry VII appointed to the Order his mother, as Margaret,
Lady Richmond, he granted both her and his queen the robes of the
Order. His mother subsequently honored her membership by found-
ing a chantry for four chaplains to celebrate mass in Windsor’s chapel.
This is apparently the only Garter service in Henry VII’s reign that the
186  R.M. Warnicke

two attended and no other female member accompanied them there. In

1495, Henry later ordered Garter robes from his Great Wardrobe for his
young daughters Margaret and Elizabeth, who were born in 1489 and
1492, respectively, but the Order’s meetings for that year do not sur-
vive. It was not until 1901 that a monarch, Edward VII, appointed to
the Order another woman, Queen Alexandria.31
In his 1985 article, James Gillespie quoted a manuscript concern-
ing the 1488 chapter when Henry granted scarlet robes to his wife and
mother. After he and the other male members went to the annual feast
and chapter at Windsor Castle, they attended evensong at the chapel. His
queen and his mother, who had not hitherto attended the Order’s func-
tions, rode on a rich chair of cloth of gold to the chapel; following them
came twelve ladies and gentlewomen riding on white palfreys. At that
service, priests censed the king and the knights but not his consort or his
mother. The next day, after the king and the knight companions went to
chapel and then to the chapter, they attended matins. The queen and his
mother and their ladies also attended the matins. Again, unlike the male
members, the women were neither censed nor brought the pax, and they
were given no opportunity to make an offering. Gillespie argued that in
Henry VII’s reign the women seemed to have become merely “orna-
mental” witnesses, as, earlier, for example, Edward III’s queen had actu-
ally made an offering at mass. Furthermore, no female members other
than Henry’s consort and his mother seem to have ever been “even pas-
sively involved in the activities.” That the king also actually distributed
robes in 1495 to his young daughters indicated, according to Gillespie,
the “increasingly dysfunctional nature of feminine membership of the
fraternity.” It was not unusual for children to gain membership, how-
ever, as Richard, duke of York and Norfolk, gained election in 1475
when he was less than 2 years old. Gillespie did not speculate as to why
Henry chose to lessen the importance of women’s activities and to cease
appointing them; whatever the reason, his son, who participated in many
tournaments failed to install any Garter women at all.32
Now turning to the incorporation of village festivities into courtly
entertainments, Edward Hall’s account does not give a specific date,
except for 1510, for this next interaction between Henry and Katherine
at Westminster, but it probably occurred in late January or February,
when Parliament was in session. He related that the king and twelve of
his “noblemen came suddenly” one morning “into the queen’s chamber,
all appareled in short coats of Kentish Kendal (a kind of green woolen
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  187

cloth), with hoods on their heads, and hosen of the same.” They car-
ried bows and arrows and a sword and a buckler “like outlaws or Robin
Hood’s men.” The queen and her ladies were “abashed” at the “strange
sight” as well as for the suddenness of their arrival. After some dancing
and other pastimes, the men, one of whom wore a Maid Marian cos-
tume, departed. It seems odd that Henry, a king, would take on the role
of an outlaw, but he appeared both as an outlaw and a nobleman.33
The next time, according to Hall’s chronicle, that the king dressed in
green was the following May at a tournament, but the chronicler did not
specifically identify him as Robin Hood since the three challengers who
joined him also dressed in green. By mid-1510, this legendary outlaw
seems to have become associated with May Day tournaments and cel-
ebrations at court. As at most war games, the queen had a somewhat
passive role in 1510. It is not known if she watched any of the competi-
tions, but at the end of the third day at Westminster, she invited the king
and all who had jousted to a great banquet. Afterward, she gave the chief
prize to Henry and the lesser prizes to three of the defenders. Finally, the
heralds cried, my lords, for your noble feats in arms, God send you the
“ladies love” that you most desire.34
On May Day 1515, a different scenario occurred, as the king, again
dressed in green, including even his shoes, went out early to Shooter’s
Hill, where he found 200 tall yeomen, clothed in green with green hoods
and bows and arrows, awaiting him. Meanwhile, the queen, dressed
richly in the Spanish style, accompanied by twenty-five ladies and three
Italian ambassadors, rode to meet the king and the yeomen. When one
of them, who called himself Robin Hood, asked the king if he wished
to see the bowmen shoot, Henry responded affirmatively. They oblig-
ingly shot their arrows twice, creating a “strange and great” noise that
pleased those in the royal train mightily. These archers actually belonged
to the king’s guard and had put on clothes “to make solace to the king.”
Afterward, Robin Hood “desired the king and queen to enter the green
wood, and to see how they lived.” The king turned to her and her ladies
and asked if they wished to enter the wood with so many outlaws. She
responded to his question that “if it pleased him, she was content.” In
the woods under Shooter’s Hill stood an arbor with a hall, a great cham-
ber, and an inner chamber, “covered with flowers and sweet herbs, which
the king praised.” Robin Hood explained that the outlaws breakfasted on
venison, and the guests “must be content with such fare.” After eating,
the king and his company departed. On their way, they met two ladies
188  R.M. Warnicke

“in a rich chariot drawn with five horses,” each of which “had his name
on his head” and on which “sat a lady with her name written.” In the
chair sat “lady May, accompanied with lady Flora,” who sang songs for
the king and led him to back to Greenwich, where the men competed
in war games and then attended a banquet. Neither the ambassadors nor
Hall specified whether the queen and the ladies met the “rich chariot,”
observed the later competition, or attended the banquet.35
Unfortunately, except for the celebrations of Arthur’s marriage to
Katherine of Aragon, few sources survive about other festivities, such as
the twelve days of the Christmas season and other feast days in Henry
VII’s reign. In his edition of the accounts of the king’s treasurer, John
Heron, Sydney Anglo found evidence of a lord of misrule’s antics in
1489, but Anglo concluded that in the early Tudor period, he was only
one of several revelers at Christmas. Several other payments can be found
in these royal accounts to a lord of misrule. References are also there to
Christmas plays performed by both the royal players and outside groups,
disguisings with pageant cars, and singing by the gentleman of the chapel
royal. Actually, in June and December 1502, Queen Elizabeth paid from
her privy purse sums toward providing clothing, mainly for the minstrels,
who performed in the disguisings. W. R. Streitberger, an expert on court
revels, has indicated that Elizabeth’s expenditures remain the only evi-
dence that a member of the royal family became personally involved in
the production of revels for a major feast. “She kept an extraordinary
court,” he explained. Of course, an elaborate banquet also formed part
of the Christmas entertainment.36
Much planning for the Christmas season must have taken place in
both the Tudor kings’ reigns. A letter to Thomas, Cardinal Wolsey, dated
in late November 1525 concerning these preparations for Mary, recently
recognized as princess of Wales, has survived. Written by John Vesey,
bishop of Exeter and president of the Council of Wales, along with five
other councilors, the letter requests information about how to plan for
the 9 year-old princess’s festivities. The letter seeks the cardinal’s “pleas-
ure” about the number of strangers to be allowed in her household for
the Christmas season and about acquiring an alms dish and spice plates
suitable for her high estate. It then turns to the entertainment, request-
ing whether trumpets and a rebeck (a kind of violin) should be obtained
for her amusement, whether a lord of misrule should be appointed,
whether disguisings or plays for the Christmas feast should be pro-
duced, and whether a banquet on Epiphany or Twelfth Night should be
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  189

prepared. It then inquires if she should send New Year’s gifts to the king,
the queen, to Wolsey and her aunt, Mary, the French queen, and if so,
what their value should be.37
This letter reflects the kind of Christmas festivities that occurred at
Henry VIII’s court. W. R. Streitberger has discovered, for example, evi-
dence of the appointment of lords of misrule between 1509 and 1521 and
again in 1534. In addition, tournaments often accompanied the annual
religious feasts. After 1512, the pageantry surrounding them changed
somewhat. The pageant cars and attacks on fortresses with ladies began to
disappear, although disguisings were still sometimes produced. During the
Christmas season in 1524–1525, the Windsor herald entered Katherine
of Aragon’s chamber, where the king was present, to present a chal-
lenge concerning a castle of loyalty controlled by a captain, who raised a
mount on which stood a unicorn with four shields, three signaling differ-
ent competitions (the tilt, tourney, and barriers), with the fourth revealing
the weapons of the captain and his company, who planned to defend the
castle against all comers. In the tilt yard, when some days later six men
emerged from the castle, which the assaulters had failed to take, two ladies
on palfreys, leading two ancient men with silver beards, delivered to the
queen and her ladies a bill in which the men requested permission to per-
form feats of honor. The queen and her ladies, who praised the old men’s
courage, agreed to their request, only to discover that they were the king
and Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk. At the end of the subsequent tilt-
ing competition, the men went to supper and then joined the queen and
ladies in her chamber for dancing. Later, sixteen men, including the king
and the duke, arrived in masks to dance with the ladies. The queen, in this
instance, as in some others, seems not to have joined in the dancing.38
The annual festival gift giving in the early modern period occurred
on New Year’s Day rather than Christmas Day. John Husee, an agent of
Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, lord deputy of Calais, wrote about
his encounter with Henry VIII on January 3, 1538. In it, he stated that
when he entered the presence chamber at Westminster Palace, he saw
the king standing and leaning against the cupboard where the gifts to
him were collected. At the end of the cupboard sat Sir Brian Tuke, treas-
urer of the chamber, recording the presents and the names of who gave
them. Henry VII’s “Articles” also specify that in the morning, the queen
should send a messenger to him with her gift and indicate, according
to his status, the amount of the fee due to him for this service.39 The
queens followed a similar practice in receiving their gifts, according to
190  R.M. Warnicke

Husee. Three years earlier, he had informed Honor, Lady Lisle, that he
had delivered her gift, which was not described, for Anne Boleyn into
the hands of, by his advice, her receiver general, George Taylor, in the
place where her presents “were appointing,” presumably her presence
chamber. The “Articles” specify that the fees given for this service should
“not be so great and large as the King’s.” While Husee was there, the
queen entered and spoke with him about Lady Lisle and asked how she
liked Calais. Taylor presently informed Husee that the queen would send
Lady Lisle a gift, which was a pair of gold beads, weighing, with their
tassels, 5 ounces.40
Lists have survived of the king’s presents of plate, the ounces of
which depended on the status of the gift receiver. For instance, in 1513,
Henry VIII gave the following individuals, among others, a plate that
was described, including its ounces: William Warsham, archbishop of
Canterbury, obtained a cup with a gilt cover, weighing 34 ounces; Sir
Edward Poynings, comptroller of the household, the same but only
22 1/4 ounces; Dame Elizabeth Boleyn (mother of his queen, Anne
Boleyn), the same, but only 16 1/2 ounces; Katherine of Aragon
received a pair of great pots gilt of 575 ounces. In 1546, as his New
Year’s gift to his last queen, he arranged for ₤666, 13 s. 4d., to be
delivered to her from the Court of Augmentations, which handled the
accounts for the dissolution of the monasteries. Perhaps this amount, if
inflation is taken into consideration, might be the equivalent of the gift
for his first wife. 41
Another list in 1534 indicates that the king, who expected gifts of
gold in return, received from Anne Boleyn a goodly gilt basin, which had
a rail or board of gold in the middle of the brim, garnished with rubies
and pearls in which stood a fountain, also with a rail of gold about it,
garnished with diamonds; out of it flowed water from the teats of three
naked women, standing at the foot of that fountain. No ounces or val-
ues were mentioned in the description. In 1546, Prince Edward thanked
Katherine Parr for her New Year’s gift containing the king’s portrait and
hers together.42
Visitors often could be found at court on feast days but especially on
the days following New Year’s, when Henry held open house, welcom-
ing ambassadors and other dignitaries, including his fourth queen and
adopted sister, Anne of Cleves, in 1541. After she had sent to Henry
two horses with violet trappings for his New Year’s gift, she traveled to
Hampton Court Palace on January 3 with Lord William Howard (future
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  191

Lord Howard of Effingham), Queen Katherine’s uncle, whom she

had met by chance on the road and with whom she had first become
acquainted at Calais on her way to England. Katherine Brandon, duchess
of Suffolk, Anne Seymour, countess of Hertford, and other ladies wel-
comed her and then escorted her to the queen’s lodgings. As she knelt,
greeting the queen, Henry entered the room, bowed, embraced, and
kissed her. After supper with his present queen and his ex-queen, Henry
then retired to his quarters while Anne and Katherine danced with each
other and then with some of his male officials. After Anne ate dinner the
next morning with Katherine and Henry, he left the chamber and sent
back to his present consort a ring and two little dogs that she passed on
to her predecessor. Afterward, Anne returned to Richmond Palace.43
On Epiphany, or Twelfth Night, as reported here earlier, Henry and
other men introduced the masque for the first time in 1512. Typically,
secular celebrations on this holy day, honoring the wise men who fol-
lowed the bright star to find Christ in his manger, were delayed until
the evening. In 1540, for example, Henry had married Anne of Cleves
on the morning of Epiphany, but following the usual wedding feast,
no celebrations were scheduled for the afternoon. After Anne and her
ladies attended evensong, they then joined the king for supper. When
the meal ended, Hall’s chronicle notes that they enjoyed masques, ban-
quets, and other entertainment, but Hall does not provide any details.
The “Articles” also refer to a void and the drinking of wassail on Twelfth
Night. They state that when the steward comes into the hall door with
the wassail, he “must cry three times, Wassail, Wassail, Wassail,” to which
the singers of the chapel royal should answer with a good song.44
Tournaments often accompanied diplomatic events, such as the sum-
mit meeting between France and England in 1520, called the Field of
Cloth of Gold.45 As this event has been the subject of many books and
articles, only the queens’ activities in the slightly more than 2 week event
will be highlighted. Between June 7 and 24, the courts of Francis I,
headquartered at Ardres, and of Henry VIII, stationed at Guines in the
English Pale of Calais, entertained each other with tournaments, ban-
quets, and masques. This meeting occurred because the marriage treaty
between Henry’s daughter, Mary, and the namesake heir of the French
king in 1518 had provided for one. It could be seen as one in which
Francis and Henry both personally affirmed the universal peace among
the Christian rulers of Europe as outlined in the Treaty of London,
also negotiated in 1518. Because of the widespread usage of gold foil,
192  R.M. Warnicke

gold braid, and cloth of gold on and in the temporary palaces and their
chambers that the two kings had constructed at their headquarters, the
meeting came to be known as the Field of Cloth of Gold. In the Tudor
palace, a set of three chambers, hung with magnificent tapestry, was each
set aside for Katherine; for her sister-in-law, Mary, the dowager French
queen; and for Cardinal Wolsey, who had arranged the meeting as well as
having earlier presided over the negotiations for the Treaty of London.
The grander effect of the expensive and lavish meeting, described as a
royal display of “self-fashioning” by Glenn Richardson, was “to present
the power of monarchy in a dynamic and compelling way.” It thus indi-
cated to the rest of Europe that English money spent lavishly on tour-
naments and banquets could also be spent on armies and battleships.
As Janette Dillon indicated, “cultural and political power were deeply
bound up together.”46
Between Ardres and Guines stood a tournament field, erected on a
high ground, which lay halfway between the two royal headquarters.
There most of the action would occur: joustings, tourneys, and barriers
On June 9, Henry and Francis, who had met in a previous encounter,
went to the field to place their royal shields on its “Tree of Honour,”
indicating the basic chivalric character of their interactions, a “classic
expression of romantic challenge and combat.” Henry’s was placed on
the tree to the left and Francis’s to the right on the same level. Below
them were placed the shields of fourteen other challengers. 47
On Sunday, June 10, Henry visited with Queen Claude at Ardres
while the French king went to Guisnes Castle to dine with Katherine
and her sister-in-law, the dowager queen of France. There the cardinal,
Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, the duke of Suffolk, and vari-
ous other noblemen, together with a large number of ladies and gentle-
men all richly dressed in cloth of gold, velvet, and silks, greeted Francis,
who was also magnificently appareled in tissue cloth set with precious
stones and pearls. After dinner, the dancing began, but before he joined
the other dancers, Francis moved about the room, carrying his hat in his
hand and kissing all the ladies, except for four or five whom he consid-
ered too old and ugly. Perhaps this insulting gesture formed part of the
Anglo-French’s ongoing competition with each other to which earlier,
for example, Sir Richard Wingfield, the English resident in France, had
referred when he revealed the French organizers’ attempts to find their
fairest ladies to attend this grand occasion. Meanwhile, after returning
to Katherine and conversing with her for a few minutes, Francis then
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  193

chose a young lady as his dancing partner. Although Katherine had been
opposed to this summit meeting, she arose to this royal occasion and
others with great style.48
On June 11, the jousting began. The two queens, Claude and
Katherine, who had not previously met, attended with their train of
ladies. Richly dressed in jewels, they had arrived in many chariots, litters,
and hackneys, which were covered in cloth of gold and silver and embla-
zoned with their coats of arms. As they sat together in a glazed gallery,
decorated with rich tapestry, they discussed the tournament. After the
competitors first did reverence to the queens, the men rode about the tilt
and began jousting.49
During the next days, jousting continued, but the weather was so
rainy, cold, and windy that it impeded the competitions and caused them
to be suspended on June 18. When the queens were present, as they were
the first week, on the 14th through the 16th, those jousting always did
reverence to them before beginning the war games. On Sunday, the 17th,
Hall noted that Francis, accompanied by his mother, Louise of Savoy,
returned again to Guisnes Castle to dine with Katherine. Afterward,
Francis participated as one of the maskers in an entertainment. In the
meantime, Henry and his sister, Mary, visited Queen Claude. During the
second week, from the 20th to the 22nd, the queens observed the final
tilts and on the last 2 days the tourneys and then the barriers.50
One of the most important events occurred on June 23, the eve of
the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. A platform with a chapel and an altar
was constructed opposite the stage from which the jousts were viewed.
Various religious dignitaries as well as members of the two royal trains,
according to their status, took their seats on the platform. Wolsey, with
the highest clerical position, sang the mass of the Trinity. There were two
separate enclosures: in one sat the queens, including Mary, the dowager
queen, and in the second one sat the kings. As the service continued,
first at the Gospel and then at the Agnus Dei the pax was taken to the
kings and then to the queens. The royal women kissed the Gospel, but
then each refused to be the first to kiss the pax, finally embracing each
other instead. Afterward, the queens dined in a chamber separate from
the kings; according to Hall’s chronicle, they had already eaten at their
own palaces and simply conversed during the banquet, enjoying the
company.51
On Sunday, the 24th, Francis, wearing a mask, had dinner with
Katherine while Henry, also masked, dined with Claude. On this final day
194  R.M. Warnicke

of the summit, the queens exchanged gifts with each other, Katherine for-
warding to Claude several hobbies and palfreys, “well trapped,” and Claude
giving to Katherine a litter of cloth of gold, mules, and pages. Katherine
also presented to Francis’s enfants d’honneur some bonnets, which she and
her ladies had sewn. The next day, the English royal family and its attend-
ants returned to Calais on their way back to England.52
What was the total significance of this conference? Henry and Francis
used the meeting to display to their nobility and the representatives of
other countries in attendance their magnificence and power as rulers
and as noble warriors as well as their desire for peace. Ultimately, even
though Henry also met with Charles, at the emperor’s insistence, both
before the summit with Francis and afterward, the French and Imperial
rulers could not keep the peace with each other. At first, Henry chose to
ally with Charles and discard the French marriage treaty for his daugh-
ter, Mary. Later, however, in 1526 and 1527, perhaps inspired by their
meeting at the Field of Cloth of Gold, according to Richardson, Francis
and Henry were able to reestablish amicable relations that lasted into the
late 1530s. The ongoing struggle, including warfare, between Francis
and Charles distracted the emperor from forceful diplomatic measures
against Henry when the latter decided to challenge papal authority in
his attempt to obtain the dissolution of his marriage to Katherine, the
emperor’s aunt. The summit also highlighted in a magnificent and pow-
erful way the cultural veneer of chivalry that still required female observ-
ers when their gentlemen performed feats of honor not just to prove
their own athleticism but ostensibly to display it as a tribute to their
ladies.53
In 1544, Henry VIII made it clear that when he did not wish to
entertain foreign guests, he did not spend much time with them.
After finishing a campaign in Flanders, Don Manriquez de Lara,
third duke of Najera, decided to stop off in England on the way back
to Spain. He was a distinguished military commander, and the year
after he met with Henry and Katherine, he was elected to the Golden
Fleece at the chapter held at Utrecht. He had departed from the
Netherlands for Spain on December 29, and after stopping in several
towns along the way, he reached Calais on February 2, 1544. His pas-
sage to Dover took a whole day, which his secretary, Pedro de Gante,
who wrote an account of his travels, described as “tedious and dan-
gerous.” Traveling northward, on February 11, Najera and his train
reached the city of London, where they dined with Stacio Depucho, a
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  195

native of Savoy and ambassador to England. The king, who had heard
of his arrival, decided that before meeting with the visitor, he had to
go to Greenwich to view some of his ships there. He did send Henry
Howard, earl of Surrey, to greet Najera, whose secretary assumed the
king needed the time to summon noblemen so that he could welcome
the duke with “greater authority.”54
Henry had also delayed giving an audience to Eustace Chapuys for
the same reason. On Sunday morning, February 17, Chapuys arrived at
court, was admitted to the king’s privy chamber, and discussed his busi-
ness for some time with Henry. Meanwhile, after William Parr, earl of
Essex, the queen’s brother, and the earl of Surrey had dined with Najera,
they accompanied him to the presence chamber. Gante noted that the
noblemen, knights, and gentlemen gathered there all paid respect to the
king’s chair of estate as though he were seated in it, every one stand-
ing on one foot, with his cap in his hand. After about fifteen minutes,
Najera and two of his noblemen, who attended him, received a summons
to enter the privy chamber, where Chapuys also awaited them. No one
else was permitted to enter, and Gante complained that neither he nor
the duke’s other attendants were allowed even to see the king. Chapuys
noted only that the duke had done reverence to Henry and was benignly
received by him.55
After about a 30 minute audience with the king, Chapuys and Najera
went to the queen’s privy chamber, where they found various ladies with
her, including the king’s daughter, Mary, and his Scottish niece, Lady
Margaret Douglas. Gante noted that the duke kissed the hand of the
queen, who received him in an “animated manner.” They then moved
to the presence chamber, where the queen sat in her chair of estate.
Unfortunately, she entered with them so that Gante could not notice
whether her attendants gave the same respect to her chair of estate as did
her husband’s attendants to his chair. He described the queen in enthusi-
astic terms:

The queen has a lively and pleasing appearance, and is praised as a virtu-
ous woman. She was dressed in a robe of cloth of gold, and a petticoat
of brocade with sleeves lined with crimson satin, and trimmed with three-
piled crimson velvet: her train was more than two yards long. Suspended
from her neck were two crosses, and a jewel of very rich diamonds, and in
her head-dress were many and beautiful ones. Her girdle was of gold, with
very large pendants.
196  R.M. Warnicke

Gante also claimed that Princess Mary had a “pleasing countenance” and
that she was “greatly beloved.”56
For the duke’s entertainment, violinists from Venice played music for
them to dance. The queen danced first with her brother “very grace-
fully”; then Mary, Margaret, and many other ladies danced with the
other gentlemen there. Finally, a professional dancer from Venice did
the gallardas—so well, according to Gante, that he seemed to have
“wings on his feet.” During the several hours of dancing, at some point
the queen seems to have departed and to have asked one of the noble-
men who spoke Spanish to give presents, which Gante did not describe,
to the duke in her name. She reentered the chamber, and Najera again
kissed her hand and requested the same favor of Mary, but she insisted
on offering her lips to him instead. The duke saluted her lips and those
of the other ladies. Gante’s description of the activities seems to suggest
that he did not realize, as Chapuys noted in his dispatch home, that the
queen was a little indisposed but still wished to dance for the honor of
the occasion. The Imperial ambassador failed to report whether he him-
self had joined in the dancing.57
Obviously, when queens hosted events in the kings’ absence, they
became more actively involved in directing the entertainment. In the
disguising, the masking, and the tournament celebrations, the consorts
seemed to have taken on the role of acting as leading members of an
appreciative audience. Even in the entry entertainments, the queens had
little interaction with the performers and musicians except to walk or
ride by them, showing their royal appreciation. Even so, their presence
was considered absolutely essential for the success of court business, fes-
tivals, and amusements. As Edward Hall lamented about the December
season in 1531 after Henry had rusticated Katherine of Aragon, “This
year the king kept his Christmas at Greenwich with great solemnity, but
all men said that there was no mirth in that Christmas because the queen
and the ladies were absent.”58

Notes
1. 
Society of Antiquaries, “Articles Ordained by Henry VII For the
Regulation of his Household,” A Collection of Ordinances and
Regulations For the Government of the Royal Household, Made in Divers
Reigns From King Edward III to King William and Queen Mary
(London: John Nichols, 1790), pp. 109–133.
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  197

2. Kay Staniland, “Royal Entry into the World,” England in the Fifteenth
Century: Proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Daniel
Williams (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987), pp. 297–313.
3. Arlene Okerlund, Elizabeth of York (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2009), p. 90.
4. “Articles,” pp. 111–115.
5. Gordon Kipling, ed., The Receyt of the Ladie Katherine, Early English
Text Society, No. 296 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 7–9;
Letters and Papers, Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry
VII, ed. James Gairdner, 2 vols. (London: Longman, Green, Longman,
Roberts and Green, 1863), I, vii (pp. 404–417).
6. Frederick Fairholt, ed. Lord Mayors Pageants: Being a Collection Towards
a History of their Annual Celebrations, 2 vols. (London: Percy Society,
1843–1844), I, 2; Robert Withington, “The Early Royal Entry,”
Publication of the Modern Language Association, 32(1917), 616–623.
7. R. Malcolm Smuts, ‘Public Ceremony and Royal Charisma: The English
Royal Entry in London, 1485–1642,” The First Modern Society: Essays
in Honour of Lawrence Stone, ed. A.L. Beier, David Cannendine, and
James Rosenheim (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp.
74–76; see also, Sydney Anglo, “The Imperial Alliance and the Entry of
the Emperor Charles V into London, June, 1522,” Guildhall Miscellany,
II(1962), 131–154.
8. Gordon Kipling, The Triumph of Honour: Burgundian Origins of the
Elizabethan Renaissance (Leiden: For the Sir Thomas Browne Institute
by Leiden University Press, 1977), pp. 72–74, 93; Kipling, Enter the
King: Theatre, Liturgy, and Ritual in the Medieval Civic Triumph
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 209–214. See also Sydney Anglo,
Spectacle, Pageantry, and Early Tudor Policy, second edition (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997), p. viii, who cautions that the role of “scriptural
and exegetical sources” in the pageant dialogue needs more attention.
9. Praising the Receyt of the Ladie Katherine, pp. iii–xiv, Kipling claimed that
“no other contemporary source preserves such a full and vivid account of
the social history, visual arts, and drama of England in the sixteenth cen-
tury. “Page 43 of the Receyt reports only that the king and queen entered
the secret closet to view the wedding, but The Great Chronicle of London,
ed. A.H. Thomas and I.D. Thornley (London: Alan Sutton, 1983),
p. 310, added the king’s mother and other nobles to the closet. See also
the Receyt, pp. 39–47 for coverage of the wedding.
10. Kipling, Receyt, pp. 49–66; Letters and Papers, Henry VII, I, vii
(p. 412).
11. Kipling, Receyt, pp. 68–77.
12. Kipling, Triumph of Honour, p. 4.
 198  R.M. Warnicke

13. Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the

Tudors, from A. D. 1485–1559, ed. William Douglas Hamilton, new
series, vols. XI and XX(Westminster: Printed for the Camden society,
1875–1877), X, 44, 59–60.
14. Wriothesley, Chronicle, X, 112; Jean Kaulek, ed., Correspondance Politique
de MM. De Castillon et Marillac: Ambassadeurs de France en Angleterre,
1537–1542 (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1885), p. 192.
15. Wriothesley, Chronicle, X, 124.
16. Kaulek, Castillon, p. 355.
17. Scottish Record Society. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the
Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J.S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R.H. Brodie, 21
vols, in 35 and Addenda (London: HMSO, 1862–1932), XVI, 1088
(hereafter LP).
18. Kipling, Receyt, pp. 58–64.
19. Sydney Anglo, “The Evolution of the Early Tudor Disguising: Pageant
and Mask,” Renaissance Drama, new series (1968), 8–11; Anglo,
Spectacle, p. xi. Chapter 2 discusses the use of a pageant car in the coro-
nation festivities of 1509.
20. Scottish Record Office, Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers
Relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain Preserved in the
Archives at Simancas and Elsewhere, ed. G. Bergenroth, P. DeGayangus,
G. Mattingly, M.A.S. Hume, and R. Taylor, 13 vol. 2 supplements
(London: Longman, 1862–1954), II, 45 (hereafter CSP Span); see also
Sydney Anglo, ed., “Introduction,” Chivalry in the Renaissance, ed.
Anglo (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1990), pp. xi–xvi; Stephen Gunn,
“Chivalry and the Politics of the Early Tudor Court,” Chivalry in the
Renaissance, pp. 107–128. See also, Sir John Harington, “Miscellaneous
Papers,” Nugae Antiquae, ed. Thomas Park, 2 vols. (New York: AMS
Press Reprint, 1966), I, 1–11.
21. Retha M. Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne of Cleves: Royal Protocol in
Tudor England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp.
168–169, 183–184.
22. LP, I, 698–699; I, King’s Book of Payments, Expenses of the Household,
p. 1495.
23. Edward Hall, Henry VIII, intro. Charles Whibley, 2 vols. (London: T.C.
& E.C. Jack, 1904), I, 24.
24. LP, I, 698-;9; Hall, Henry, I, 24–26.
25. Hall, Henry, I. 26–27.
26. Ibid., p. 27.
27. Ibid., p. 40
28. See for example, Bruce Pattison, Music and Poetry of the English
Renaissance, second edition (London: Methuen, 1970), p. 50; Anglo,
“Evolution,” pp. 4–9.
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  199

29. Helen Miller, Henry VIII and the English Nobility (New York: Blackwell,
1986), p. 87; LP, I, 37, VII, 682, XV, 560; John Anstis, ed.,The Register
of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. 2 vols. (London: printed by John
Barber, 1724), I, 264–265, for example; for Henry VII, see also Grace
Holmes, The Order of the Garter: Its Knights and Stall Plates (Windsor:
Oxley, 1984).
30. Elias Ashmole, The History of the Most Noble Order of the Garter: Wherein
is Set Forth an Account of the Town, Castle, Chappel, and College of
Windsor;… To Which is Prefix’d, a Discourse of Knighthood in General
(London: printed for A. Bell, W. Taylor, and J. Baker, and A. Collins,
1715), pp. 86, 169–172; James Gillespie, “Ladies of the Fraternity of
Saint George and of the Society of the Garter,” Albion, 17(1985), 260,
265–267; Steve Brindle, “The First St. George’s Chapel,” St. George’s
Chapel, Windsor: History and Heritage, ed. Nigel Saul and Tim Tatton-
Brown (Stanbridge: Dovecote, 2010), 36–44.
31. Edmund Fellowes, ed., The Knights of the Garter, 1348–1939, with a
Complete List of the Stall-Plates in St. George’s Chapel (London: S.P.C.K.,
1939), p. 109; Gillespie, “Ladies of the Fraternity,” pp. 274–275; Anstis,
Register of the Garter, I, 235. Elizabeth de la Pole, duchess of Suffolk,
the sister of Edward IV, who attended a chapter meeting in 1476 was still
alive in 1488, for example.
32. Gillespie, “Ladies of the Fraternity,” pp. 275; Rosemary Horrox,
“Richard, duke of York and duke of Norfolk (1473–1475), prince,
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, www.dnboxforddictionary.com
(accessed April 26, 2016).
33. Hall, Henry, I, 15.
34. Ibid., 29. In 1511, foresters dressed in green performed in the entertain-
ment honoring Katherine for her successful childbirth.
35. Ibid., pp. 146–147; LP, II, 409–411. See also, Victor Sherb, “I’de have a
shooting: Catherine of Aragon’s Receptions of Robin Hood,” Research
Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, 42(2003), 124–146.
36. Sydney Anglo, ‘The Court Festivals of Henry VII,’ Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library, 43–1 (1960), 12–45; W. R. Streitberger, Court Revels,
1485–1559 (Toronto: University of Toronto Psress, 1994), pp. 41, 249;
Nicholas Harris Nicolas, ed., The Privy Purse Expenditures of Elizabeth of
York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth (New York: A Facsimile
edition published by Barnes & Noble, 1972), pp. 21, 78.
37. LP, IV, 1785. Henry Ellis, Original Letters Illustrative of English History,
3 vols., series one (London: Triphook and Lepard, 1824), 1, 271.
38. Anglo, Spectacle, pp. 110–115; Hall, Henry, II, 24–26; Streitberger,
Court, p. 8.
39. The Lisle Letters, ed. Muriel St. Clare Byrne, 6 vols (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981), V, 1086; “Articles,” p. 120.
200  R.M. Warnicke

40. Ibid., II, 302, 307; “Articles,” p. 120.

41.  LP, I, 1549, XXI-I, 643, f. 85.
42.  Ibid., VII, 9, XXI-1, 686. For the king’s expectations, see Philippa
Glanville, “Plate and Gift-giving at Court,” Henry VIII: A European
Court in England, ed. David Starkey (London: Collins and Brown,
1991), pp. 131–135.
43.  CSP Span, VI-I, 305–306; Kaulek, Marillac, pp. 258–259. Retha M.
Warnicke, Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats and
Commoners (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), p. 66.
44. Hall, Henry, II, 302–303; “Articles,” p. 121; for a nobleman’s celebra-
tions, see Ian Lancashire, “Orderes for Twelfth Day and Night circa
1515 in the Second Northumberland Household Book,” English Literary
Renaissance, 10(1980), 7–40.
45. For these events, see Hall, Henry, I, 197–218; LP, III, 869, 870, and
Richard Turpyn, The Chronicle of Calais, in the Reigns of Henry VII. and
Henry VIII, to the Year 1540, ed. John Gough Nichols, Camden Society
Series, vol. 35 (London: Printed for the Camden Society, by J. B. Nichols
and son, 1846), pp. 19–28, 77–92; for a modern study, see Glenn
Richardson, The Field of Cloth of Gold (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2013).
46. Richardson, Field of Gold, pp. 6, 202; Janette Dillon, Performance and
Spectacle in Hall’s Chronicle (London: Society for Theatre Research,
2002), p. 5.
47. Anglo, Spectacle, p. 149; Richardson, Field of Gold, p. 128.
48. Hall, Henry, II, 203–210. LP, III, 648, 689, 728.
49. Hall, Henry, II, 203–210.
50. Richardson, Field of Gold, pp. 134–135.
51. Ibid., p. 170. Another account said they kissed each other. See LP, III,
870.
52. Glenn Richardson, “‘As Presence Did Present Them:’ Gift-giving at the
Field of Cloth of Gold,” Henry VIII and the Court: Art, Politics, and
Performance, ed. Thomas Betteridge and Suzannah Lipscomb (Farnham:
Ashgate, 2013), p. 57; Richardson, Field of Gold, p. 157.
53. Richardson, Field of Gold, pp. 199–202.
54. Frederick Madden, ed. “Narrative of the Visit of the Duke de Najera
to England in the Year 1543–1544, Written by his secretary, Pedro de
Gante,” Archaelogia, XXIII, 1831), 3–15, https://books.google.
com/books/about/Narrative_of_the_Visit_of_the_Duke_de_Najera.
html?id=R7hPAAAAcAAJ (accessed April 14, 2016), pp. 9–10.
55. LP, XIX-1, 118; Madden, “Narrative,” p. 10.
56. Madden, “Narrative,” pp. 11–13. In 1539, a statute required that no
one except the king’s children should thereafter presume “to sit or have
 6  REVELS AND CELEBRATIONS  201

place” on any side of the cloth of estate but limited this restriction to the
parliament chamber. See Maria Hayward, Rich Apparel: Clothing and the
Law in Henry VIII’s England (Burlington: Ashgate, 2007), p. 46.
57. LP, XIX-1, 118; Peter Holman, Four and Twenty Fiddlers: The Violin
at the English Court, 1540–1690 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp.
78–80.
58. Hall, Henry, II, 202.
 CHAPTER 7

Death and Burial

This chapter first examines demographic information about death in the

early modern period. It next looks at the state of the medical knowledge,
the fear of the spread of disease, and the accepted view of God’s role in
healing the sick or in punishing sinners with illnesses. Then it turns to
people’s preparations for death and the subsequent roles of priests in tak-
ing their last confessions and granting them absolution so that their souls
could avoid damnation. Following descriptions of mourners stripping
bodies and embalming them for their burials, this chapter turns to the
special significance of funerals for reigning queens that presented them as
symbols of sovereignty, and it finally describes the deaths and burials of
Elizabeth of York and her six daughters-in-law.
Modern demographic studies have determined that in 1541 approxi-
mately 2,700,000 people lived in England and that in 1551, shortly after
Henry VIII’s death, almost 80% of the population fell between the ages
of 5 and 59 years. The largest group, 37%, included individuals from the
ages of twenty-five to fifty-nine. The next two groups contained people
between the ages of five and fourteen (23%) and between the ages of fif-
teen and twenty-four (18%). The two smallest groups included children
aged four years or younger (13%) and adults over sixty (8%). Modern
estimates have calculated life expectancy at birth in 1551 at about forty-
two years. Although early modern Europeans lacked statistical means to
calculate their life expectancies, many, including Erasmus, believed that
they reached old age in their fortieth year. They sometimes referred
to the first stage of old age, which most people thought began from

© The Author(s) 2017 203

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_7
204  R.M. Warnicke

somewhere in the forties, to 65 years as “green old age” and then from
somewhere in the sixties to seventies as “decrepit old age.”1
Despite their easy access to plentiful food and adequate housing, only
two of the seven consorts, including for this particular sample Margaret,
dowager queen of Scotland, and Mary, dowager queen of France, but
not counting the two executed Tudor queens, reached, according to
modern calculations, the age of life expectancy at their birth: Katherine
of Aragon died at age fifty and Margaret at fifty-one. Two others died
of natural causes at earlier ages: Mary at thirty-seven and Anne of Cleves
(divorced) at forty-one. The three who died after childbirth included
Jane Seymour, at about 28 years, Katherine Parr (dowager queen), at
about 35 years, and Elizabeth of York, at 37 years. Their husbands or
fathers, Henry VII and Henry VIII, died when fifty-two and fifty-five,
respectively.2
A primary cause of early death resulted from the state of medi-
cal knowledge in the premodern period. Physicians still mostly used
Greco-Roman humoral methods, attempting to alleviate symptoms with
bleeding, laxative, and vomiting prescriptions. Others, without the uni-
versity training of physicians, also offered medical assistance: surgeons let
blood and dressed wounds, among other practices; midwives delivered
infants; and wise women (sometimes called white witches) used herbal
recipes. Wives generally also grew herbs in their gardens to ease symp-
toms. Taught that only divine intervention could cure their illnesses, the
members of the wealthy classes, especially the royal family, attempted to
appease God by attending religious services frequently, by praying and
reading religious treatises, and by charitable activities, regularly giving
alms to the poor and to various religious orders, and going on pilgrim-
ages. They also took advantage of their ability to flee from areas where
disease prevailed and to prevent attendance at their residences of those
individuals who had some contact with ill persons, whether suffering
from the sweating sickness, from the plague, or from other infectious
diseases. Historians have especially noted Henry VIII’s fear of contagious
illnesses that greatly influenced his itinerary, but other members of the
royal family left evidence of similar concerns. While serving as his regent
in September 1544, Katherine Parr issued a proclamation concerning
the plague that “reigned” in London and Westminster. She prohibited
the attendance at court of all persons who lived in infected houses, who
had “resorted to” people with the plague, or who had been in places
infected by diseases. The proclamation listed the penalty for disobedience
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  205

as “punishment at her highness’s pleasure.” Meanwhile, along with

the king’s children and members of her council, she had moved from
Hampton Court Palace to Woking.3 Earlier in 1500, as already noted,
Henry VII and Elizabeth went to Calais for 51 days to escape the plague
in England.
Besides lacking adequate medical treatment, early modern Europeans
also had little or no understanding of how diseases spread. They avoided
taking hot baths for fear that the water would open up the pores in their
skin and leave them vulnerable to a gaslike substance or vapor, called
miasma, entering their bodies. It was through the pores, they believed,
that even the plague could infect them. Gradually, in the sixteenth cen-
tury, spas became available for the wealthy, providing them hot baths for
curative purposes under the care of a physician. Otherwise, for cleanli-
ness, individuals usually washed their faces and hands with cold water
and frequently changed the linens that touched their skin and absorbed
their sweat. Some cleansed parts of the body with perfume and even
wine.4
In addition to the biological causes of death, people feared that sinful
behavior or a corrupt soul could cause sickness. They suspected that lep-
rosy, for example, resulted from the commission of sexual crimes. God,
they also understood, punished sinners, who longed for male heirs, with
miscarriages and deformed fetuses. They even interpreted sudden deaths
as providential judgments because those individuals did not have suffi-
cient time to prepare properly for the afterlife by writing wills and by
putting their spiritual lives in order. Two actions that people believed
could prevent sudden deaths, which seemed to have occurred frequently,
included viewing an image of St. Christopher, usually painted on the
church door so that worshipers could observe it on their way to service,
and witnessing the elevation of the host during mass. These two sight-
ings applied only on the days of observation. By contrast, Christians
viewed easy deaths as a “mark of divine favour.”5
Those dangerously ill people of the wealthy classes, who had time to
prepare for their death, usually left a will, also called a testament, that
contained a statement of their religious beliefs and arranged for execu-
tors to distribute their property to their relatives and friends. Because of
intense concerns for their souls that they feared might endure agonizing,
lengthy periods in purgatory, individuals either began, when still healthy,
to found chantries for the purpose of praying for their souls or later,
when ill, to make preparations for those prayers in their wills. Sometimes
206  R.M. Warnicke

after signing off on their testaments, individuals might recover, but many
sick persons actually hired scribes to draft their final wishes only days or
perhaps weeks before their death.6
When the sick seemed close to death, with or without a will, their
relatives had the duty of summoning a priest to bring the sacrament to
them and see to their final spiritual needs. Christians believed that the
events occurring in the last moments of life had critical consequences
for their souls’ ultimate destination. The souls of unrepentant individu-
als had no possible destination but hell—most certainly not heaven or
even purgatory, the usual, temporary place for the souls of believers,
who awaited there for the saying of enough prayers that would enable
their ascent into paradise. After arriving at the dying peoples’ homes, the
priest, preceded by his clerk with candle and bell, began with the Ordo
Visitandi, which involved his holding the crucifix before the patients, a
gesture that proved to the individuals the presence of Christ and that was
intended to drive away the many demons that were thought to appear
at peoples’ dying moments for the purpose of preventing their repent-
ance and thereby sending their souls to hell. Next, the priest asked seven
questions of his parishioners with the object of confirming their belief in
the articles of the church and the Holy Scriptures, of obtaining their sor-
rowful confessions that they had offended God, of eliciting their forgive-
ness of their enemies, and of gaining their acknowledgment that Christ
had died for their sins. When they had answered these questions to the
priest’s satisfaction, he pronounced absolution and anointed their bodies
on the forehead and other places with oil. Afterward, the priest put the
body of Christ in the repentant persons’ mouths to eat. When observers
believed that the souls seemed to be departing, the sounds of the bell
reminded the faithful to pray for the deceased.7
Afterward, skilled servants stripped, washed, and embalmed the body,
around which they wrapped sheets of waxed linen, and then placed it on
a table. Next, relatives and friends kept vigils. About three days later, in
the afternoon, mourners, dressed in black, took the shrouded corpse,
placed in a coffin, in a grand procession amid the tolling of bells to the
local church and situated it on a table before the altar. After the read-
ing of the office of Placebo, vigils over the bodies were kept overnight.
The next morning, the priest recited the Dirge and celebrated the req-
uiem mass for the deceased. For wealthier parishioners, this mass might
be preceded by a mass of Our Lady and a mass of Trinity. Church bells
rang out as the time of burial approached. After the priest sprinkled and
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  207

censed the body, mourners carried the coffin to the grave, where the
priest might make some brief statements; then they lifted the shrouded
body from the coffin and placed it in the grave that the priest had some-
time earlier sprinkled with holy water. After pronouncing words of abso-
lution, the priest again sprinkled the body with holy water and censed it.
As he commended the soul to God, the mourners shoveled earth into
the grave. Finally, they feasted in the churchyard.8
As to the more elaborate final rites of the royal family, those of the
kings have gained greater scholarly attention than their consorts primar-
ily because their deaths signaled publicly the transference of monarchical
power to the next generation, but queens’ final ceremonies also deserve
investigation because they embodied cultural, biological, and political
significance. Although the consorts’ rites did not signal the transmission
of governance, they did present the women as symbols of sovereignty.
Equally importantly, as John Carmi Parsons has argued, their death rituals
conveyed acceptable images of queenship to their successors, which they
themselves had adapted from the rites of their predecessors. While con-
sorts’ final rituals effectively honored both their royal husbands and their
dynasties, they also confirmed biological continuity, publicly establishing
through funeral and burial insignia the familial links between theirs and
future generations. The elaborate death ceremonies granted by kings to
their consorts confirmed that they had provided significant and crucial
diplomatic, political, and moral necessities and support for them and their
descendants.9 This chapter now evaluates and contrasts the funerals of the
Tudor consorts, only two of whom still reigned as queens at their deaths.
Both of the consorts who died when still successfully married to a
Tudor king succumbed in childbirth: Elizabeth of York in 1503 and Jane
Seymour in 1537. As heralds controlled all aristocratic funerals, not just
those of the royal family, a principal aristocratic mourner of the same sex,
but of lesser social status than the deceased, performed the prominent
role at the funeral. This protocol meant, as at the christening of their
infants or at the coronation of their consorts, that Henry VII and Henry
VIII could not participate in the ceremonies because they held superior
ranks to their relatives whom the rites honored. Kings could only par-
ticipate in other kings’ funerals.10 As will be seen below, the religious
core of royal funerals basically mirrored those of commoners’ but on a
grander scale, with heraldic oversight and in the context of much more
splendid garments and caskets, many more participants, longer vigils, and
more religious services.
208  R.M. Warnicke

In February 1503, Elizabeth of York unexpectedly went into early

labor at the Tower of London, as she had earlier planned to establish
her lying-in chamber at Richmond Palace. Her privy purse accounts indi-
cate that on about February 28, James Natres, her servant, received pay-
ment for having obeyed the king’s order to bring her physician, Doctor
Hayllyswurth, to her, but the date on which he completed his errand
is not known. She had given birth on February 2 to a daughter named
Katherine who was christened on the 4th and lived until the 18th. Seven
days before Katherine’s death, her mother died, possibly of puerperal
fever.11
Before departing to a solitary place for mourning, Henry ordered his
council, naming specifically Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey (future sec-
ond duke of Norfolk), lord treasurer, and Sir Richard Guildford, comp-
troller of the household, to supervise her heraldic funeral and burial
and ordained that 636 masses should be celebrated for her in London
churches. The first step in this final rite involved preparing the queen’s
corpse in her chamber and then taking it for ten days of vigil to the
Tower’s chapel before finally removing it for the funeral to Westminster
Abbey. Officials placed her embalmed body in a shroud of forty ells of
Holland linen, then enclosed it in lead and placed it in a wooden chest
or coffin that was covered in white and black velvet with a cross of cloth
of gold. They next moved it to the chapel and set it in a hearse, a tem-
ple-shaped structure of wood, decorated with banners, heraldic devices,
and lighted candles. On Sunday, the first vigil day only, Lady Elizabeth
Stafford acted for the queen’s absent sister, Lady Katherine Plantagenet,
as principal mourner, leading the queen’s ladies, who walked two by two
and wore plain clothing until they received their mourning garments,
which resembled religious habits: long straight gowns with surcoats
over them and with long trains back and front. The women looped the
foretrain over a girdle to facilitate walking; they wore on their heads a
pleated wimple that came down over their ears and covered their chins.12
During the following nights, four gentlemen, two officers of arms,
and seven yeomen and grooms watched over the queen’s coffin,
around which six ladies knelt continuously. The members of the chapel
royal supervised the singing of daily masses. On the second day, when
the queen’s sister, Lady Katherine, arrived, accompanied by the earl of
Surrey (future second duke of Norfolk) and Henry Bourchier, earl of
Essex, she assumed her position as chief mourner. After William Smyth13
bishop of Lincoln, celebrated mass on the tenth and final day of the vigil,
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  209

the lords and ladies dined while the queen’s casket rode to the abbey on
a bier, a movable stand covered with black velvet and a cross of cloth
of gold, pulled by six matched horses. On each corner of the bier hung
white banners, signaling that she had died in childbirth.
On top of the coffin lay the queen’s effigy, clothed in a robe of estate
made of nine yards of crimson satin bordered with black velvet and gar-
nished with rich jewels. In her right hand she held a scepter. Only the
effigy’s wooden head, carved by Lawrence Emler, with a crown and a
carefully painted face, is still housed at Westminster Abbey. Two join-
ers framed its body partly with “hoops” and partly with “a covering of
leather stuffed with hay.” Although embalming techniques had advanced
in the high medieval period, the corpse could still only be viewed openly
for five or six days. As the practice of displaying the body had led to
greater ceremonial events over a longer period, crown officials in the
fourteenth century had begun to withdraw the corpse from view and to
substitute for it an effigy, as at Elizabeth’s funeral. Her effigy also had
the effect of displaying the splendor and wealth of the royal dynasty. All
Tudor monarchs and at least two of the queens consort, along with vari-
ous members of the nobility, had effigies placed on their coffins. In the
course of the eighteenth century, improved methods of embalming led
to their disuse. In 1714, Queen Anne was the last monarch to have an
effigy displayed on her coffin, although some members of the nobility
continued to be honored with them, the last being Horatio, Admiral
Nelson, in 1806.14
In Elizabeth’s procession to Westminster Abbey in 1503, henchmen
in black gowns with mourning hoods rode on the six horses that pulled
the bier; at the head of each horse walked a man of honor in a black
robe with a hood. Following the bier, eight ladies of honor, including
the chief mourner and Lady Elizabeth Stafford, rode on eight palfreys.
Three chariots with ladies followed them: Lady Anne Plantagenet, the
queen’s sister, sat in the first one, and Lady Katherine Gordon, the
widow of Perkin Warbeck, the Yorkist pretender, rode in the third one.
Some London citizens on horseback, in addition to many of the king’s
and the lords’ servants, followed them; in all, the participants numbered
in the hundreds.
Before the queen’s bier rode Thomas Stanley, earl of Derby, consta-
ble of England and the king’s stepfather, the Garter king, the mayor of
London, and the king’s chaplains. On the left in front of them marched
children of the chapel royal, the choir of St. Paul’s, some friars, and
210  R.M. Warnicke

200 poor men carrying torches. On the right side walked numerous
noblemen, the chief judges, master of the rolls, the knights of the Garter,
various clergymen, the aldermen of London, and members of the lesser
aristocracy. Near the front of the procession marched diplomats, repre-
senting the Hanseatic League, France, Portugal, and Venice, as well as
trumpeters, minstrels, and others. On one side of the street from Mark
Lane to Temple Bar, 5000 torches blazed, and along the other side,
members of the livery guilds stood. Near them, thirty-seven virgins, rep-
resenting the queen’s age, wore white linen gowns and wreaths of green
and white, and held lighted candles. When a woman died in childbirth,
she was treated as a woman who retained her virginity, “perhaps because
she paid so high a price for losing it.” As the bier passed by the church-
yards on Cheap Street, which was garnished with new torches, priests
censed the coffin and parishioners sang and prayed. At the bridge near
Charing Cross, the abbot of Westminster and the abbot of Bermondsey
also censed the coffin and followed it to the churchyard of St. Margaret’s
where the procession was disbanded.15
Her servants carried the queen’s coffin from the bier to a hearse dec-
orated with more than 1000 lights, which stood between the abbey’s
high altar and the choir. That evening, the abbot of St. Alban’s and
nine bishops conducted the Dirge. Afterward, a number of torchbear-
ers, ladies and gentlemen, officers of arms, and yeomen watched over
the queen’s coffin. At 6:00 AM, the choir of the chapel royal sang the
Lauds and Matins, and at 7:00, William Warham, bishop of London
and soon to be archbishop of Canterbury, sang the mass of Our Lady.
At this mass, the principal mourner, accompanied by Thomas Grey, mar-
quess of Dorset, and the earl of Derby, alone gave the offering, and at
the mass of the Trinity, sung by Edmund Audley, bishop of Salisbury,
the principal mourner again gave the only offering, but at the third mass
of the requiem, sung by Bishop Symth, all present offered, including
the principal mourner and her sister, Lady Anne, as well as the noble-
men, the chief justices, knights of the Garter, aldermen of London, and
members of the lesser aristocracy. Next, the queen’s ladies, after pay-
ing obeisance to the coffin and kissing the palls (cloths of white, pur-
ple, or black velvet) lay thirty-seven of them across the queen’s effigy,
acknowledging their homage to her. The queen’s two sisters each placed
five palls; Margaret Grey, marchioness of Dorset, four palls, Elizabeth
Grey, Viscountess Lisle, Mary Bourchier, countess of Essex, and Lady
Elizabeth Stafford each three palls; and the remaining ladies one pall
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  211

each. After Richard Fitzjames, bishop of Rochester’s, sermon in which

he bemoaned the great loss of that virtuous queen, the ladies departed;
clergymen removed the palls, and the monks took the queen’s effigy into
St. Edward’s shrine.16
When Bishop Warham had finished hallowing the temporary grave
under the lantern of the abbey, attendants placed her coffin inside. Next,
the queen’s chamberlain and her ushers broke their staffs of office and
tossed them into the grave, the traditional protocol for signaling the
end of royal service. Chaplains then distributed alms to poor people
and to various religious orders. After the burial, the royal hearse usu-
ally remained in situ for thirty days. The cost of the queen’s funeral and
burial had exceeded £2800—a huge expenditure in honor of the first
Tudor consort. For the wealthy, a month’s mind, essentially a repetition
of the funeral service, with a sermon, bell ringing, and alms, was also
held four weeks after interment. Of the members of the royal family, only
the month’s mind sermon given by John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, for
Margaret, countess of Richmond, has survived. 17
Henry VII had initially decided to have himself and some members
of his family interred in a lady chapel that he planned to construct at
Windsor Castle. He also had intended to transfer the corpse of Henry
VI from the enlarged chapel at Windsor that Edward IV had rebuilt for
his dynasty there into the new lady chapel. After hearing testimony that
Henry VI would have preferred interment at Westminster Abbey, his
royal nephew decided instead to build his new lady chapel at that abbey
to honor himself, his wife, his mother, and his uncle. Others, includ-
ing Sir Reginald Bray, then carried on the work of building Henry VII’s
intended lady chapel at Windsor, now known as the Albert Memorial
Chapel. Since the attempts to canonize Henry VI, the last Lancastrian
monarch, failed, his corpse remained resting in the sanctuary of Windsor
Chapel, “almost opposite the burial place” in a nearby chantry closet of
Edward IV, who had ordered his predecessor’s death.18
On January 24, 1503, construction on the abbey’s lady chapel finally
commenced, but Henry VII’s namesake son inherited the task of com-
pleting it and constructing what was to be a double monument for his
parents. Italian sculptor Pietro Torrigiano created the tomb of Henry
VII and his consort, atop which lies side by side their exquisite figures.
Double royal tombs had originated in England for Richard II and Anne
of Bohemia, a style that continued into the later medieval period. The
earlier tomb effigies held scepters in their hands, but both Henry and
212  R.M. Warnicke

Elizabeth are shown clasping their hands in prayer. Their tomb repre-
sents, as Margaret Condon has noted, “a mixture of deeply seated religi-
osity and of dynastic aftermath.” Every year, whether in her temporary
vault or in her final resting place, on February 11, at Henry VII’s order,
a special solemn service, an “occasion of secular pomp and circumstance,
as well as sacred memorial and intercession,” celebrated his queen.
Ultimately, Reformation politics caused its abandonment. The tomb
continued to inspire tourists, however. In the early seventeenth century,
Fynes Moryson, who traveled extensively, wrote his impression of it.
“Among all the sepulchers” that he had seen in Europe and in Turkey,
he explained, the one in the abbey, “erected to Henry the seventh … of
copper metal, adorned with vulgar precious stones, is the fairest, espe-
cially considering the stately chapel built over it.”19
Some similarities as well as some differences existed between the
funeral rituals of Elizabeth and Jane Seymour. As his father had for his
consort, Henry VIII ordered masses to be said in London for Jane, who
died at Hampton Court Palace about midnight on October 24, 1537,
some twelve days after the birth of their son, Edward. However, Henry
requested 1200 masses—about twice as many as were sung for his
mother. After appointing Thomas, third duke of Norfolk, the high mar-
shal, and Sir William Paulet (future marquess of Winchester) treasurer of
his household, to oversee the heraldic funeral preparations, the king, like
his father, also retired to a solitary place. Norfolk and Paulet studied the
funeral arrangements for Elizabeth to discover what precedents needed
to be adopted and determined that seven marquesses and earls, sixteen
barons, sixty knights, forty squires, and the ordinary of the king’s house
had participated in her rituals. They informed Cromwell that they had
not been able to summon that many men for Jane’s funeral and burial,
and sent him some additional names. They hoped that he would, after
consulting with the king, select some of them and speedily inform them
of the choices.20
Meanwhile, various officials prepared the queen’s body. As usual, they
washed and embalmed the corpse, and information has also survived of
the wax chandler’s removing her entrails, which were interred separately
in the chapel on October 26. Almost certainly officials had earlier per-
formed this procedure on Elizabeth. Normally the entrails of monarchs
and their queens received separate burial from their bodies. When the
plumber enclosed Jane’s corpse in lead and laid it in a wooden coffin
with an effigy, which no longer exists, the king’s servants took it to the
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  213

presence chamber and set it in a hearse. On Wednesday, October 31,

they removed the coffin to another hearse in the chapel there. On that
day, Gertrude Courtenay, marchioness of Exeter, substituted as principal
mourner for Princess Mary, who suffered from some illness but recov-
ered enough to march the next day in the procession to the chapel as
principal mourner. The only reference to an offering at mass occurred on
that day, at which all gave a gold coin. The vigil continued with the usual
services until Monday, November 12, lasting somewhat longer than had
Elizabeth’s. On that day, the procession set out for the burial site, with
Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial ambassador, present; in Jane’s case, the
move to Windsor Castle, not simply to another place in the London
area, had to be completed for her funeral and burial.21
Two chaplains distributed alms on the way to Windsor, where
the mayor and aldermen met them and led the procession to the cas-
tle. There the dean of Windsor and his colleagues greeted the mourn-
ers and accompanied the corpse to the choir of Edward IV’s chapel.
A solemn watch that night preceded the funeral the next day. Various
churchmen, among them Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury,
and the queen’s almoner, Robert Aldrich, bishop of Carlisle, conducted
the traditional funeral services. It is interesting that the ladies, including
the principal mourner, placed thirty-seven palls on Jane’s effigy. Perhaps
the thirty-seven for them represented the year in which the queen died,
for she certainly had not reached that age. It is also possible that when
Norfolk and Paulet studied Elizabeth’s funeral arrangements, they did
not realize that this number represented her age. Moreover, although
Henry VIII had supervised the construction of a double monument for
his parents at Westminster, he ultimately failed to erect a monument for
Jane at Windsor. He did extend the period of mourning at court for her
until Christmas and continued to wear black until February 2, 1538.
When he himself died, his descendants failed also to erect a monument
for Jane and him. Today in the choir of the chapel at Windsor can be
seen a black slab, ordered to be placed there by William IV in 1837,
informing visitors that Jane and Henry, as well as Charles I and an infant
of Queen Mary II, lie in the vault below. Tim Tatton-Brown, who inves-
tigated the site, has maintained that the actual vault lies four meters to
the east of the slab.22
Earlier in his reign, Henry VIII had considered preparing his and
Katherine of Aragon’s final resting place at Westminster Abbey.23
No explanation has survived as to why he chose to have himself and
214  R.M. Warnicke

his third wife interred at Windsor. Perhaps because Katherine and he

shared their coronation at the abbey while Jane did not live long enough
to enjoy hers there he might have wanted to select another place for
the burial of his heir’s mother. As his father had first planned to have
some family members interred at Windsor, Henry might have hoped to
link the Tudors in death with Henry VI, as well as Edward IV and his
queen, also buried there in 1492. He might have planned, therefore, to
select a new memorial place for the Tudors, linking them in death to his
Lancastrian great uncle and Yorkist grandparents.
Now turning to the death of Katherine of Aragon, who had refused
to give up her title as the queen of England, in 1534 she had begun
her residence as a semiprisoner in rooms in the southwest corner of
Kimbolton Castle, Cambridgeshire, attended by only a few loyal serv-
ants. Days before her death in 1536, two old friends visited her. After
learning about her serious illness, and suspecting that her royal custodi-
ans might have been poisoning her, Chapuys finally obtained permission
to see her. He arrived at the castle on Sunday, January 2, took leave of
her on Tuesday evening, and departed on Wednesday morning, the 5th.
When he departed, he still hoped for her recovery; he consoled himself
with the memory that he had seen her laugh two or three times.24
Meanwhile, Maria, Lady Willoughby de Eresby, a former Spanish
attendant of Katherine, had journeyed from her London property of
Barbican or Bas Court to Kimbolton, arriving about 6 PM, the day
before Chapuys’s visit began. Sir Edmund Bedingfield, the custodian,
had admitted her into the castle even though she lacked royal permission
to see her old mistress, but only after she, a noblewoman in a class-dom-
inated culture, announced that the injuries she had suffered from falling
from her horse prevented her from traveling any farther. She remained
with Katherine, to whom Jorge de Athequa, bishop of Llandaff, gave the
last rites at 10:00 AM on January 7 and who died about 2:00 PM that
day.25 Since Henry had long declined to permit his daughter to visit her
mother as punishment for not supporting his decision to dissolve their
marriage, he did not waive this prohibition as Katherine lay dying.
The usual processing of the body began immediately after her death,
but Bedingfield and Sir Edward Chamberlain, the king’s comptroller,
reported to Sir Thomas Cromwell that while the groom of the cham-
ber could embalm and cere her corpse, they had to send for a plumber
to enclose it in lead. On January 21, Chapuys later informed Charles V
that eight hours after her death, the embalmer had opened her body and
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  215

had related to Bishop Llandaff that he had found all the internal organs
as sound as possible except for a heart that had turned black and pos-
sessed a black lump. Some modern physicians have suspected that the
description indicated a secondary form of melanotic carcinoma, but
whatever the cause of her death, she almost certainly was not poisoned.
It is unclear where the embalmer buried the entrails but probably at the
castle, since they had been removed about twenty-one days before her
interment.26
Afterward, her attendants placed her corpse under a cloth of estate
in her privy chamber with four torches burning. Three of her ladies,
as well as Lady Willoughby, watched over her body. It is likely that the
belated arrival of the plumber caused the seven-day delay in the begin-
ning of her death rituals. On the 15th, after he had finished enclosing
her corpse in lead and had “chested” it with spices, attendants moved the
coffin to the chapel, where the vigils of the dead were said and on the
16th one mass only. Then, from January 16 to 22, her corpse lay again
in the privy chamber under a cloth of estate while attendants constructed
a hearse to honor her as princess of Wales. Directions have also sur-
vived for the completion of an effigy, but Julian Litton doubts that one
was constructed. If it was, it has not survived. On the 22nd, mourners
placed her body in the completed hearse, adorned by fifty-six wax can-
dles, that stood in the chapel. During the five days that followed, eight
principal mourners assisted in the masses that the priests sang: Katherine
née Willoughby, the second wife of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk;
Elizabeth Somerset, countess of Worcester; Elizabeth de Vere, countess
of Oxford; Frances Howard, countess of Surrey; and four baronesses,
including the duchess of Suffolk’s mother, Maria, Lady Willoughby.
On Wednesday the 26th, the appropriate mourning robes for these
ladies finally arrived. After mass the next day, servants carried the cas-
ket, decorated with a cloth of gold frieze and a cross of crimson velvet,
from the chapel and placed it on a bier, drawn by six horses covered in
black cloth. In procession, the mourners journeyed nine miles to the
Cistercian abbey at Sawtry and spent the night there. The next morning,
after mass, they moved on to the Benedictine abbey at Peterborough,
the designated place of burial. After three ecclesiastics, John Longland,
bishop of Lincoln, Thomas Goodrich, bishop of Ely, and John Hilsey,
bishop of Rochester, as well as six abbots, including John Chambers
of Peterborough, received the coffin, their attendants placed it in the
hearse with 1000 candles in the chapel where several banners displayed
216  R.M. Warnicke

various arms, those of the emperor, England, the king’s mother, Prince
Arthur, and even of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, who had mar-
ried Constanza (1354–1394), the exiled elder daughter of the murdered
Pedro I of Castile. Bishops Longland, Goodrich, and Hilsey, respec-
tively, celebrated three solemn masses that day, undoubtedly Our Lady,
the Trinity, and finally the requiem at which Bishop Athequa assisted.
Lady Eleanor, not only the younger daughter of the duke of Suffolk
and his first wife, Mary, dowager queen of France, but also the future
wife of Henry, Lord Clifford (later earl of Cumberland), held the posi-
tion of chief mourner and alone made the offering. Then Bishop Hilsey,
well known for his advocacy of the royal supremacy, preached a ser-
mon in which he denounced papal power and denied the title of queen
to Katherine, even claiming erroneously that on her deathbed she had
relinquished her queenship. Next, Eleanor and the eight original prin-
cipal mourners offered, by the hands of the heralds, three ells in three
pieces of cloth of gold that had lain upon her coffin that were to be used
to make “accoutrements” (items of apparel) for the men of the chapel,
where a service would be held annually on January 29, and then placed
palls on the coffin, the chief mourner four, the duchess three, the coun-
tesses two each, and the baronesses one each. Finally, the officials buried
the chest in the north aisle to the left of the high altar, placing a simple
black cloth over the site, leaving the hearse where it stood.27
In 1541, Henry, who had the abbey dissolved in 1539, advanced it
to the status of cathedral and elevated Chambers as the first bishop of
Peterborough. Over a century later, Simon Gunton, who visited the
cathedral, reported that some people thought that Henry had not
destroyed the building out of respect for his late queen, whose body
would have had to be removed elsewhere. Whether that rumor was true
or not, Gunton noted that the “goodly structure of the place, conveni-
ent for a new erection … might make a fair plea for its reprieve.”28 Her
tomb, which Henry had ordered constructed, seems to have been of low
stature and to have consisted of black marble with gilded letters and dec-
orations, but Oliver Cromwell’s soldiers seized the gilding in 1643, and a
dean of the cathedral used the marble for his summerhouse in the 1700s.
In the late nineteenth century, a wife of one of the cathedral’s canons,
Katharine Clayton, initiated a public appeal asking all the Katharines in
England to donate toward the installation of a replacement marble slab,
which stands there today with a golden grille identifying her as Katherine,
queen of England, thus symbolically restoring her title. The modern
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  217

cathedral officials honor her at the Katherine of Aragon Festival, which

takes place annually on the Friday and Saturday nearest January 29.29
As she lay dying, Katherine dictated a will in which she asked the king
to have her buried in a convent of the Franciscan Observant Order, una-
ware that he had dissolved their houses, that he order 500 masses to be
said for her soul, and that he send someone on a pilgrimage to our Lady
of Walsingham (suppressed in 1538), who should distribute twenty noble
coins (each worth 7s. 6d.) on the way. She made several other bequests,
such as grants to her daughter of a collar of gold that she had brought
with her from Spain and some furs, and requests that various attendants
receive monetary gifts, including wages for Bishop Athequa for the next
year. Finally, she wanted her gowns to be sewn into ornaments for the
convent where she would be buried. Later, in her daughter’s will, dated
March 30, 1558, Queen Mary asked that she be interred at the “discre-
tion of her executors,” that they should remove her mother’s corpse from
Peterborough Cathedral and place it near her own sepulcher, and that
they see to the construction of honorable monuments for both of them.
Her will, like her mother’s earlier one, remained unfulfilled.30
By ordering Katherine’s funeral held in the Midlands, rather than at
Westminster Abbey, Henry was able to diminish the public attention
directed toward it. Indeed, the place of burial probably made it impos-
sible for many to pay their respects, as it had taken Chapuys, who had
hastened to arrive before Katherine’s death, two days even to reach
Kimbolton from London because of the mired roads.31 No town dig-
nitaries, no major royal councilors, except for Sir Richard Guildford,
comptroller of the household, and no foreign ambassadors, not even
Chapuys, because Henry had her buried as the princess of Wales,
attended. While many individuals dressed in black to mourn her death,
many more, had she been laid out at Westminster, for example, would
themselves have observed the vigils, if not the funeral and burial. Some
of the religious events were curtailed—for instance, the delay in build-
ing the hearse for the Kimbolton chapel meant that her corpse had to be
returned to the privy chamber for several days, awaiting its construction.
Again, the distance from London probably caused difficulties in obtain-
ing the necessary supplies for it and probably prevented the creation of
an effigy. Needless to say, not only could she not have been buried at
a Franciscan Observant convent as she had asked, but also no evidence
survives to prove that Henry’s councilors fulfilled her other last wishes,
including the saying of 500 masses for her soul. Even before her burial,
218  R.M. Warnicke

Richard Rich had already written a letter to Henry, explaining that

although she was a “sole” woman, he knew of legal ways by which the
king could seize her goods.32
The other two ladies, Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, who were
married to Henry and who were buried during his lifetime, suffered exe-
cution at the Tower of London. Turning first to Anne, on the morning
of May 2, 1536, at Greenwich Palace, Sir William Paulet and Sir William
Fitzwilliam (later earl of Southampton) accused her of having engaged
in carnal relations with three men, identifying only two of them, Henry
Norris and Mark Smeaton. That afternoon, they sent her by barge to
the Tower of London and imprisoned her in either the Beauchamp or
Cobham Tower. There, her unsympathetic aunt, also named Anne, the
widow of Sir Edward Boleyn, and three other ladies watched her care-
fully on behalf of Sir William Kingston, constable of the Tower. Anne
appeared extremely emotional; for at least one full day, she alternated
between great laughing and weeping. From the beginning of her impris-
onment, she turned to her religion for comfort, asking that the sacra-
ment be placed in the closet by her chamber so that she could pray for
mercy and that her almoner, John Skip, be summoned to attend to her
spiritual needs.33
Meanwhile, Henry decided against a parliamentary attainder that
would simply state that Anne and her accused lovers, ultimately number-
ing five including her brother, George, Viscount Rochford, were guilty
because, except for Mark Smeaton, they had refused to confess that they
had committed the sexual crimes. In judicial trials, royal councilors could
presumably present evidence sufficient to prove their guilt. An option
for Anne and Rochford, but not for the four accused commoners, could
have been a trial in the House of Lords. On 27 April, the crown had
issued writs for a meeting of Parliament, but Henry decided against wait-
ing until it met on June 8. Perhaps he preferred moving against all the
accused in trials during the month of May, or perhaps he decided that
judgments against Anne and Rochford seemed more appropriate in the
court of the Lord High Steward, which operated only when Parliament
was not in session. Of the more than fifty English peers, the crown chose
only twenty-six, all living in or near London, for Anne’s and Rochford’s
trials, at which the third duke of Norfolk, as Lord High Steward, pre-
sided.34
On Monday, May 15, 2 days after Paulet and Fitzwilliam had broken
up her household and discharged her servants, Anne and two attendants,
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  219

her aunt and Mary Kingston, the constable’s wife, entered the room for
the trial at the Tower. When the indictments accusing her of enticing
five men to have illicit relations with her were read aloud, she remained
unnerved while hearing the lurid details and excused herself, as Charles
Wriothesley reported, “with words so clearly, as though she had never
been faulty to the same.” After the noblemen, who were individually
polled, unanimously declared her guilty, Anne reportedly said that she
regretted that innocent men had to die because of her and asked for time
to prepare her soul for death.35
Cranmer held a hearing into the legality of her royal marriage and
pronounced it invalid on May 17; the records outlining his reasons have
not survived. Scholars have identified either Henry’s affair with her sis-
ter, Mary, or Anne’s possible per verba de futuro vows with Lord Henry
Percy as the cause. Clement VII, however, had issued a dispensation
allowing Henry VIII to wed the sister of his mistress, as well as a woman
who had previously entered into a contract of marriage, as long as the
union remained unconsummated. Furthermore, Percy, then fifth earl
of Northumberland, denied the existence of a precontract with Anne.
Perhaps the king took seriously the charges for which she would die: the
luring or bewitching of men into having sexual relations with her. The
medieval church decreed that the freely given consent of the bride and
groom was essential to a valid marriage. If Henry assumed Anne had
lured him as well as her accused lovers, then he could have concluded
that he had not freely sworn the per verba de praesenti vows and could
have directed Cranmer to annul his union with her.36 This decision had
a serious dynastic result since it meant demoting Elizabeth to illegitimate
status, but it also mutely clarified that the ex-queen could not have com-
mitted adultery.
On the morning of Thursday, May 19, Alexander Alesius, a German
reformer visiting in England, later recalled that he had awakened about
2:00 AM troubled by a vision or dream in which he saw the details
of the queen’s neck after her head had been chopped off. Terrified
and unable to return to sleep, he departed from his lodgings near the
Tower of London for the first time since April 30, unaware of the events
planned for that day on Tower green. He crossed the Thames and wan-
dered toward Lambeth Palace, where he found Cranmer, who had taken
Anne’s last confession. After the archbishop asked Alesius why he was up
so early, he described his dream to him. Cranmer then raised his eyes to
heaven and said, “She who has been the Queen of England upon earth
220  R.M. Warnicke

will to-day become a Queen in heaven.” So great was his grief that he
could say nothing more to Alesius but burst into tears.37
Later that day, about 9:00 AM, Anne, dressed in a robe of black dam-
ask covered by an ermine mantle of white, entered the Tower courtyard
in the company of her attendants and Constable Kingston. They led her
to the sheriff, who escorted her to a low platform of only four or five
steps that had been newly constructed on the green. In her last speech,
which Hall’s chronicle quotes, her words reflected most of the demands
of priests, who regularly attended to the spiritual needs of the dying. She
forgave those who had brought her to this place, but the law had judged
her guilty, and therefore she “would speak nothing against it.” Thus, she
kept the traditional protocol, failing to challenge the judgment against
her but also neglecting to confess specifically that she had committed the
crimes for which she was to be executed. She next prayed God to “save
the king” and provide him with a “long reign, for a gentler nor a more
merciful prince was there never.” Vaguely defending herself, she did say
that “if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the
best.” Finally, she asked those present to pray for her and said, “O Lord
have mercy on me, to God I commend my soul.” What is missing here
is that she failed to admit having offended God, but as John Skip gave
her spiritual comfort during her final hours in the Tower and Archbishop
Cranmer had taken her last confession, they would have seen to those
spiritual needs. Furthermore, as the first queen to be executed, no model
existed for her to follow except those of others with lesser social status.38
It is interesting that the crimes of which queens were most frequently
accused were adultery and witchcraft.39
She dispensed alms of £20, exchanged her headdress for a cap of
linen, thanked her ladies for their diligent service, and exhorted them
not to forget her and to serve the king faithfully. Having asked them
to say prayers for her, she knelt down, was blindfolded by one of her
attendants, and repeated “To Jesus Christ I commend my soul; Lord
Jesus receive my soul” several times until, with a swing of his sword, the
executioner from Calais “sealed the debt that she owned unto death.”
Reportedly, she fell to the ground with both her lips and eyes moving.40
While Henry was planning to remarry, attendants buried Anne’s
remains at St. Peter ad Vincula, the chapel at the Tower. Preparing her
for interment, her ladies wrapped her head and body with a sheet, per-
haps of waxed cloth, and placed them in a chest of elm. In November
1876, as two architects, Anthony Salvin and John Taylor, began
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  221

remodeling the chapel, they discovered a skeleton under a paving stone

near the choir. After examining it, a medical expert, Dr. Mouat, said that
he believed it was the skeleton of a woman between the ages of twenty-
five and thirty. He also noted that the corpse had a little neck, which was
how Anne Boleyn had described her neck while still a Tower prisoner.
They did not positively identify the remains as Anne’s, but the supposi-
tion was strong that they were hers. If so, she was probably not interred
in the elm chest but, without any prayers or religious services, placed in
the ground covered only by the sheet, as were other condemned crimi-
nals. Commoners, who did have services, were also not buried in coffins.
The architects failed to discover the skeleton of Katherine Howard, the
other wife of Henry who was also interred in this chapel.41
Claire Ridgway, who investigated the execution site, has determined that
because of the Tower’s many structural changes since the Tudor period,
the beheadings on its green did not occur where the present memorial
stands but rather on the now graveled parade ground between the White
Tower and Waterloo Block, where the green used to be located. After the
discovery of Anne’s assumed skeleton in the nineteenth century, a memo-
rial plaque was placed on a railed-off area of what had then become Tower
green in memory of all those executed there. In September 2006, it was
replaced by a new memorial, designed by British artist Brian Catling,
that “features two engraved glass circles, listing those executed on Tower
Green, with a sculpted glass pillow as the focal point in the center.”42
Katherine Howard, who was interred there almost six years after her
first cousin, Anne Boleyn, followed an entirely different path to this
place, although the charges against both of these queens involved illicit
sexual activities. After Katherine and Henry’s wedding, the queen at first
seemed to have led a carefree life. Charles de Marillac, the French ambas-
sador, reported in October 1540 that she was enjoying the banquets
given for her.43 Even before the royal marriage, however, acquaintances
from her days with her step-grandmother, Agnes Howard, dow-
ager duchess of Norfolk, had begun to contact her. In the spring 1540,
Francis Dereham, a servant of the duchess and a distant Howard rela-
tive, arrived at court and then departed, after learning about her possible
royal marriage. On July 12, Joan Bulmer neé Ackworth, also a former
servant of the duchess, successfully wrote Katherine for a royal office. A
year later, in 1541, Dereham returned to court and demanded a position
in her household, which she granted on August 27, 1541, while on pro-
gress to York with Henry.44
222  R.M. Warnicke

Earlier that year, on Maundy Thursday 1541, at the behest of her

principal female attendant, a lady of the bedchamber, Jane, Viscountess
Rochford, the widow of her first cousin, Anne Boleyn’s brother, Lord
Rochford, Katherine agreed to permit privately a visit from Sir Thomas
Culpeper, a member of the king’s privy chamber. Almost certainly
Culpeper had learned of her sexual experiences at the home of her step-
grandmother and had bribed Lady Rochford to aid him in this rendez-
vous. Naive and foolish, Katherine thus placed herself under the control
of Culpeper, who used this first meeting to blackmail her into seeing him
again. Conduct books warned wives against meeting with men other
than their husbands. Antonio de Guevara, for example, warned that if a
husband were not home, another man should not visit his wife. Guevara
was referring, of course, to formal visitations, not to secret meetings,
which he would have even more greatly condemned.45
On the above-mentioned trip to York, beginning on June 30, 1541,
Henry took Katherine and a full court with him, anticipating meet-
ing there with his nephew, James V, king of Scotland. During the trip,
Katherine, aided by Lady Rochford, met secretly with Culpeper three
more times, at Lincoln, Pontefract, and York. Recalling her fearful state
of mind during one of those sessions, Culpeper claimed that she had
warned him not to mention their discussions in his confessions to priests
for fear the king, as the supreme head of the church, might learn of
them. Perhaps she worried that some cleric might inform Henry, rather
than that he might somehow have a pipeline into individual confessions.
It is possible, however, given the belief that he could cure diseases, that
she thought that he possessed other semidivine powers. Finally, she
informed Culpeper that she did not wish to see him privately again, a
decision he deemed unacceptable.46
After the court returned to Hampton Court Palace without meet-
ing James V, Henry learned on November 1, 1541, from a note that
Archbishop Cranmer had left in his chapel pew, about recent allegations
concerning Katherine’s premarital sexual experiences. John Lascelles
informed some of the king’s councilors that he had learned from his sis-
ter, Mary Hall née Lascelles, a former servant of Lady Norfolk, that
Henry Manox had sexually abused Katherine, beginning when she was
thirteen at Chesworth, a dower house near Horsham, Sussex, of her
step-grandmother, and that Dereham, when she was fifteen, had sexual
intercourse with her at Lady Norfolk’s house at Lambeth. An inves-
tigation, including the questioning by Cranmer of a nearly hysterical
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  223

queen, confirmed the truth of Lascelles’s allegations. Katherine admit-

ted Manox’s abuse and claimed that Dereham had forced her to have
sexual relations with him, even insisting that she call him husband
when he referred to her as his wife. After learning about her confession,
the distraught king left on November 5 to confer with his council at
Westminster, never to see her again.47
On Saturday, November 11, the privy council informed Cranmer and
others that Henry had decided to have her moved to Syon House to be
“lodged moderately, as her life has deserved, without a cloth of estate.”
They arranged for her to reside in two rooms, there attended by only
four gentlewoman and two chamberers, and prohibited her from wear-
ing clothing decorated with jewels and pearls. On the 12th, Thomas,
Lord Audley, assembled the king’s councilors, spiritual and temporal
lords, and learned counsel to reveal to them her “abominable behavior.”
That same day at Hampton Court, Sir Thomas Wriothesley informed
Katherine’s household of her offenses and discharged them.48
As Dereham and another of Katherine’s servants had mentioned
Culpeper, the crown subjected her to another interrogation. Cranmer,
Norfolk, and nine other councilors signed this confession in which she
admitted secretly meeting with Culpeper while Lady Rochford was pre-
sent, but insisted that she had admonished her female attendant to stay
close to them. Katherine swore that Culpeper never touched any part
of her body except her hand but confirmed giving him some presents.
Despite further questioning, neither Katherine nor her two abusers,
Dereham and Culpeper, confessed to having had sexual relations with
her while she was married to the king.49
In addition to obtaining these confessions, the government discov-
ered a letter that she had sent to Culpeper at Lodington on July 19
that seems to have arranged their meetings on the northern progress.
It has erroneously been described as a love letter, but it is a odd speci-
men of the romance genre. A better interpretation of it focuses on the
queen’s concern about Culpeper’s intentions. She desperately wanted to
talk with him to discover whether he would keep a promise that he had
made to her. Thus, she might have been attempting to placate him in
order to prevent his revealing her secret past to the king. After caution-
ing him that she could only see him in Lady Rochford’s presence, she
wrote, “Thus I take my leave of you trusting to see you shortly again
and I would you were with me now that you might see what pain I
take in writing to you.” She ended with “yours as long as life endures”
224  R.M. Warnicke

rather than “during life.” No words in the letter speak of love or

romance. Fear, pain, and death were on her mind.50
Katherine’s behavior disgraced the entire Howard family. On
November 14, Norfolk told Marillac that the investigators presumed
she remained incontinent after her marriage to Henry. The duke also
described Katherine as mentally unstable; she was refusing to eat or
drink, and she was weeping and crying like a madwoman. Norfolk tear-
fully emphasized Henry’s grief and the Howards’ misfortunes caused by
his nieces Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard.51
In December, Henry’s officers incarcerated some of her relatives,
including the dowager duchess of Norfolk, her daughter, Katherine, wife
of Henry Daubeney (future earl of Bridgewater), her son, Lord William
(future Lord Howard of Effingham), and his wife, Margaret. Anne
Howard, wife of Katherine’s brother, Henry, was also arrested. Margaret
Howard and ultimately her husband William confessed knowing about
the sexual relations of Dereham and Katherine, but Lady Norfolk contin-
ued to deny all knowledge of their affairs. The Howards probably hoped
to protect their family’s reputation and honor, but since Margaret and
William admitted that they had been aware of Katherine’s behavior, it is
unlikely that their other relatives remained ignorant of it.52
After their convictions of high treason for committing adultery with
Katherine, Culpeper was beheaded, and Dereham was hanged, drawn,
and quartered on December 10. Sparing Katherine and Lady Rochford
a public trial, the crown asked Parliament to pass a bill of attainder
to which the king’s assent was given in absentia by letters patent on
February 11. It proclaimed Katherine and Lady Rochford guilty of
high treason, declared the dowager duchess of Norfolk and Katherine
Daubeney guilty of misprision of treason, confirmed the misprision of
treason convictions of William Howard, his wife, and various other mem-
bers of the queen’s and the duchess’s households, and stated any future
queen failing to reveal her illicit past would be declared guilty of trea-
son.53 Ultimately, the crown released all Katherine Howard’s relatives.
On February 10, Suffolk and Southampton escorted Katherine by
barge from Syon to the Tower of London, where on the morning of
the 13th one stroke of the ax sufficed to behead her. After an attendant
placed a cloth on her body, it was Lady Rochford’s turn. A letter with an
eyewitness account of their executions has survived. Otwell Johnson, a
member of the Drapers’ Company, described them to his brother, John,
a merchant of the Staple at Calais. He believed, he wrote, that their souls
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  225

were in heaven, for they had “made the most godly and Christian end,”
testifying to their faith in God and asking the people “to take exam-
ple of them for amendment of their ungodly lives and gladly obey the
king in all things.” They were both buried under the altar of St. Peter
ad Vincula, probably like Anne Boleyn without caskets and religious ser-
vices.54
Perhaps because the king sired no children with Katherine, he decided
not to order Cranmer to hold what would have been a painful hear-
ing for him into the validity of the marriage. Actually, the archbishop
believed that their union was probably invalid because Dereham and
Katherine had called each other husband and wife during the time that
they were engaged in sexual intercourse and were probably officially wed
per verba de futuro.55
None of the accused men took responsibility for his actions. Like their
male contemporaries, they defined women as the more sexually aggres-
sive sex. Manox, who was not punished because he had only abused her,
said Katherine loved him; Dereham insisted that she wanted to marry
him; Henry’s councilors charged her with misleading the king about
her unchaste life; Culpeper claimed she was “languishing and dying of
love for him” but contradicted himself somewhat by admitting that she
showed him “little favor.”56 In her short life, she had faced great adver-
sity because of cultural attitudes toward sexuality. Her male abusers
seemed to have assumed that her reluctance for sexual contact masked
interior consent. Their decision to take advantage of her youth and her
naivety not only led to their execution but also to hers.57
Henry VIII’s fourth and fifth wives, Katherine Parr and Anne of
Cleves, of course, survived him. Only Katherine continued to hold the
title of dowager queen since Henry, who could not consummate the
union with Anne, had successfully obtained a dissolution of their mar-
riage, although she had continued to hope after the death of Katherine
Howard that she might resume her queenship. The lives of royal wid-
ows did not usually prove to be easy or happy. The demotion in political
and social status could cause personal unhappiness at a time when they
had to struggle with the tragic loss of their husbands. Disputes could
and did arise as to the royal women’s rights to their previously granted
income and property. The possible remarriage of a queen dowager also
outraged some of their contemporaries, for many viewed her private life,
because of her previous role as queen consort, as a public issue. Hostility
to these new unions can be traced back at least to 1428, when because
226  R.M. Warnicke

of the secret wedding of Henry V’s widow, Katherine of Valois, to Owen

Tudor, Parliament passed a statute making it illegal for the royal dowager
to remarry without the consent of the king and his council. 58
In January 1547, Henry’s health quickly deteriorated, but when
Katherine Parr and Princess Mary arrived at Whitehall, he would not
permit them to enter his bedchamber, although normally a wife had an
important role to play in her husband’s deathbed rituals. After his demise
on January 28, which his councilors kept secret for three days, Katherine
donned mourning garments, including a ring with a death’s head, and
attended his funeral at Windsor chapel, where he was buried in the vault
with Jane on February 14. She watched the service privately from the
queen’s closet above the choir.59
By late May, her life had become more complicated. Sir Thomas
Seymour, ennobled as Thomas, Lord Seymour of Sudeley and holding
the office of lord high admiral, had begun to court her, and she finally
agreed to wed him secretly without the lord protector’s or council’s
approval. When by June their union became public knowledge, many
reacted with anger because Katherine had ignored the traditional mourn-
ing protocol for widows, especially for dowager queens. Furthermore,
she had already become embroiled in disputes with her husband’s
brother, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset and Edward VI’s lord pro-
tector, over control of her dower lands and her jewels.60
A further controversy arose because of her new husband’s political
ambitions. Not only did Princess Elizabeth live with Katherine, primar-
ily at her dower houses at Chelsea and Hanworth, but Lady Jane Grey,
third in line to the throne after Edward VI’s sisters, also moved as his
ward into Seymour’s London house. Thus, he had under his immedi-
ate control the second and third legally designated successors to Edward
VI. Meanwhile, Seymour treated Elizabeth, according to her governess,
Katherine Ashley’s, later testimony, with too much familiarity—perhaps
the reason for her removal from the dowager queen’s household. By
May 1548, Katherine, who had learned that she was pregnant for the
first time despite having been married three times previously, decided
to establish her lying-in room at Sudeley Castle, her husband’s estate
in Gloucestershire. Coincidentally, that same month, Elizabeth went to
live with Katherine Ashley’s sister, Joan Denny, and her husband, Sir
Anthony Denny, at Cheshunt, Hertfordshire. No specific explanation
has survived as to why Elizabeth was moved from the dowager queen’s
household, but it is possible that because of the rumors her governess
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  227

later spread, the queen dowager could not obtain permission to take
Elizabeth with her to Sudeley. Instead, the princess entered the house-
hold of Sir Anthony, an ally of the lord protector.61
On June 13, although she had hoped to leave London earlier,
Katherine Parr, her husband, and Jane Grey moved to Sudeley. There,
she delivered her child, named Mary after the princess, on August 30.
Probably the victim of puerperal fever, Katherine’s health worsened; at
times she became delirious, even complaining to her attendant, Elizabeth
Tyrwhit, that Seymour had abused her with, among other slights,
“shrewd taunts.” She died on September 5, between 2:00 and 3:00 AM.
In her oral will, she left her husband, who left immediately after her
death, her power of attorney and all her possessions. Her daughter died
two years later.62
After her servants prepared her body for burial and placed the cof-
fin in her privy chamber, they decorated the chapel with black cloth and
covered the rails in black. The number and status of the subsequent
processing mourners, when compared to those of the queens’ funerals
already examined here, appears extremely limited. No member of the
secular nobility, except for Lady Jane, or bishops attended. Gentlemen
and knights, members of her household, and the Somerset herald
marched behind two conductors in black. Then six gentlemen in black
carried the corpse, on which stood two lighted escutcheons, into the
chapel and placed it inside the rails. Yeomen and others followed with
eleven staff torches; behind them walked Lady Jane, the chief mourner,
and six other female mourners. Finally, all ladies and gentlemen, yeomen,
and others in attendance entered the chapel. The service, entirely in
English, continued with the choir singing some psalms and reading three
lessons. The mourners, according to their status, placed alms in the col-
lection box. After the offering, Miles Coverdale, the dowager’s almoner,
preached a sermon in which he pointed out that the alms were not given
for the dead but for the poor, and that the lights were there to honor
the corpse and for no other purpose. Afterward, her attendants buried
the corpse on the north side of the altar, without a monument or stone,
while the choir sang Te Deum in English. The funeral over, the mourn-
ers then departed for dinner. The entire funeral rites had been completed
in one morning. No days of vigil were held; the speed with which she
was buried could explain the lack of noble attendance. Its simplicity
cannot be blamed only on its Protestant tone, however, for the funer-
als of some later reformers were much more elaborate. Perhaps Seymour
228  R.M. Warnicke

proved unwilling or unable to fund a grander spectacle. It might also

have served as a recognition of the social attitudes of many toward a
queen dowager who had married secretly a mere baron so quickly after
the king’s death.63
Later, during the civil war, Puritan soldiers greatly damaged the castle,
by then a crown stronghold, and by the eighteenth century, all infor-
mation about Katherine’s burial there seems to have been lost. In 1782,
some ladies, investigating the chapel, discovered a coffin about one foot
under the surface of the floor. They found in it a corpse with a lead sheet
of soft metal covering a body like a tube. An inscription on it indicated
that it was Katherine’s corpse. They cut into the tube two holes, one
above the face and one above the breast, and observed that her body had
not decayed because it had been so tightly wound so that, as is known
today, bacteria could not enter into it. Since they did not close up the
holes, bacteria subsequently caused the body to decompose. In 1786,
after opening up the coffin, Treadway Nash decided to measure the tube
and discovered it was five feet, four inches long, indicating her body had
been a few inches shorter. The corpse by this time had greatly deterio-
rated; even its teeth had fallen out of the gums.64
It was not until 1862 that a monument was erected to honor her
death. That year, an eminent architect, Sir George Gilbert Scott,
designed a canopied, smooth white marble tomb with an elaborate
memorial recumbent figure or effigy of the dowager queen with her
hands lifted in prayer on top of it. It was installed over the original burial
site in Sudeley Chapel.65 In his lifetime, Seymour might have done more
to honor his wife, but he himself had little time left. His heated politi-
cal competition with his brother, Somerset, led to his arrest five months
later, in January 1549; the following March, he suffered execution after
the members of the council, including his brother, signed his death war-
rant. 66
Turning now to Anne of Cleves, the fourth queen of Henry VIII, on
July 9, 1540, both convocations unanimously agreed that her royal mar-
riage was invalid, and three days later, Parliament confirmed that assess-
ment. As the king’s sister, she was required to remain in England during
his lifetime and to correspond with members of her family only under his
councilors’ supervision. The divorce caused the loss of her social posi-
tion and affected her financially. Henry ordered her household reduced
to thirty members, but he also granted her for life Richmond Palace
and Bletchingley and other property in Kent, including Hever Castle.
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  229

Until his death, she seemed content to remain in England, hoping to be

restored to her queenship and considering him still her husband.67
After Edward VI’s succession, the financial problems that the
government faced led Somerset and later John Dudley, duke of
Northumberland, to delay payment of the pension that Henry had
granted her. Although he had given Richmond and Bletchingley to her
for life, Somerset and his council also decided to seize those properties.
As compensation for them, they gave her Penshurst and Dartford Priory,
and later Chelsea Manor. Because ultimately her expenses exceeded by
£922 her annual income of £2666, she wrote to her brother, William,
duke of Cleves, for assistance. He did send agents to intercede for her
with the government, but with little success. In 1552, she complained to
him that England was not her country, that she was a stranger there, and
that she wanted to return home, but he proved unwilling to take on the
financial responsibilities that this move would entail.68
She lived into the reign of Mary, riding in the same chariot with
Elizabeth at the queen’s entry into London on September 29, 1553,
marching in the procession with her to Westminster Abbey for the cor-
onation, and sitting with her at the queen’s table during the banquet.
These were Anne’s last public appearances.69 In her will, begun only four
days before she died at Chelsea Manor on July 16, 1557, she asked for
a Catholic funeral; “sick in body,” she also left a bequest for her physi-
cian, Dr. Symondes, noting “his great pains, labors, and travails” for her
“often times.”70
After Anne’s death, the queen, whom she had asked to super-
vise her will, provided her with a grand funeral at Westminster Abbey.
Little evidence has survived to prove that the two royal women had a
close personal relationship when Anne, then unable to communicate in
English, was her stepmother, but letters written later by Anne to her
are extant. One in early 1553 concerns a misunderstanding over a grant
of land Edward VI’s councilors made to her in early 1553. Later, after
Mary’s accession, Anne wrote to her in August 1554, wishing her and
Philip “much joy and felicity, with increase of children.” She also asked,
if it were the queen’s “pleasure,” if she could “wait” on her when she
returned to London again. Even so, it is possible that Mary made this
decision about her funeral more because of religious and political needs
rather than personal ones. She had restored the abbey, which Henry VIII
had dissolved in 1540, as a focus for her revival of Roman Catholicism
in England. A grand royal funeral would help to celebrate and highlight
230  R.M. Warnicke

that effort and would also honor a foreign-born ex-queen, the daughter
of Cleves.71
Immediately after Anne’s death, her servants prepared her body in the
usual manner for her funeral, burying her bowels before the high altar
at Chelsea Church. From July 16 to August 2, her chaplains said masses
and dirges daily before the casket, which lacked an effigy, but which was
covered with a pall of cloth of gold and surrounded by burning tapers.
Meanwhile, at Westminster Abbey, between the high altar and the choir,
the monks constructed a splendid hearse. On August 2, a grand proces-
sion set out from the abbey to Chelsea to fetch the corpse. It included
the usual heralds, some of the queen’s councilors, many gentlemen,
the choir of St. Paul’s, John Feckenham, the abbot of Westminster
Abbey, with thirty Westminster monks, and Edmund Bonner, bishop of
London. Elizabeth Paulet, marchioness of Winchester, wife of William
Paulet, marquess of Winchester and the queen’s lord treasurer, served as
chief mourner.72
They returned to Westminster with Anne’s corpse on a chariot pulled
by four horses, each carrying a henchman wearing a black hood. At 7:00
AM on the morning of August 3, after the singing of two masses, Our
Lady and the Trinity, with the usual offerings, the mourners departed for
breakfast. When they returned, they heard the requiem mass and a ser-
mon preached by the abbot. They then departed to the great chamber in
the abbey while the abbot and bishop supervised the burial of the corpse
in the sepulcher, which was covered by a cloth of gold, on the south side
of the altar. Following traditional protocol, Anne’s officials broke their
staffs and threw them into the tomb, signifying the end of their service.
Afterward, mourners led by Lady Winchester enjoyed the usual feast.73
The hearse remained standing for a fortnight but had to be removed,
perhaps because the monks had torn off, among other items, its velvet
cloth and banners. This despoiling might have had its origins in a dis-
agreement between the monks and the heralds as to which group had
ownership rights to the hearse. Later, in Elizabeth’s reign, the heralds
won this particular dispute.74
The funeral gained great public attention for the restored abbey, but
still major differences between it and those of Elizabeth of York and
Jane Seymour existed in the social and religious status of the mourners
and in the lack of diplomatic participation. Many fewer members of the
nobility attended than in the above queens’ funerals. Besides the mar-
quess and marchioness of Winchester, the others named included only
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  231

the following: Elizabeth Howard, dowager duchess of Norfolk; Henry

Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, the queen’s lord steward, and a widower;
William, Lord Howard of Effingham, the queen’s lord high admiral,
with his baroness, Margaret; Edward, Lord North, and his baroness,
Alice; and Thomas, Lord Darcy of Chiche and his baroness, Elizabeth.
Some might have absented themselves or lacked invitations for religious
reasons. In her will, Anne had left a bequest to Katherine Brandon,
duchess of Suffolk, but she had departed for Germany shortly after
Mary’s accession. Probably, because Bishop Bonner possessed the princi-
pal episcopal role at the funeral, Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York and
lord chancellor, whom Anne of Cleves also left a bequest, stayed away.
She did remember William, Lord Paget, the keeper of the privy seal,
but for unknown reasons, neither he nor his wife, Anne, attended the
funeral. Second, no place in the procession was set aside for London’s
ruling classes, perhaps because the route from Chelsea to Westminster
did not go through that city, although the choir of St. Paul’s Cathedral,
as well as the abbey, participated in the rituals, thereby emphasizing the
religious dimension of the service. Finally, for some diplomatic or politi-
cal reason, even the Spanish officials in London, who had said farewell
to King Philip in early July, the same month as Anne’s death, did not
attend her service, although her brother had married as his second wife
Maria, princess of Austria, daughter of Ferdinand I, future Holy Roman
Emperor and the uncle of Philip.75
Unlike the funeral site of Jane, Anne’s contains a monument. It is
a low marble structure of three sections with carvings that display her
initials, AC, with a crown, lions’ heads, and skull and crossed bones. It
does not have a recumbent effigy.76 The speculation is that Theodore
Haveus, a sculptor and architect from Cleves, who completed carvings at
Cambridge University in the 1570s, also constructed her tomb but left
it unfinished. If so, then it would have been Elizabeth, rather than Mary,
who ordered it built. Between 1605 and 1610, when Richard Neile, the
future archbishop of York, served as dean of Westminster, among his
accomplishments was his decision to have work continued on the tomb
and to have it railed in.77 In the 1970s, an inscription placed on the back
of the tomb includes the following: “Anne of Cleves Queen of England.
Born 1515. Died 1557.”78 Like Katherine of Aragon, long after her
death, sympathizers symbolically returned her title to her.
This chapter has highlighted how the state of medicine remained
mainly a religious matter. Blaming disease and death on sin, and
232  R.M. Warnicke

depending on religious devotions and the absolution of the priests

to win their ascent into heaven, many people needlessly died at early
ages because of the lack of knowledge about how diseases spread and
how to cure them. The final ritual of their lives followed a similar pat-
tern: embalmment and a vigil, after which occurred a funeral and burial
in either the churchyard or the church, and then a feast. Although the
funerals of reigning queens were more elaborate, with their entrails bur-
ied separately, with their mourners much greater in number, and with
more elaborate services, the core of the funeral service remained similar
for all social classes in which criminal charges were not an issue.
The differences in how the Tudor kings treated their wives depended
on, in Henry VIII’s case with his first three consorts at least, whether
the consummation of his marriage led to the birth of a male child who
lived past infancy. Thus, he honored only Jane Seymour as his queen and
planned to be buried with her even when married to Katherine Parr. The
splendor of the funeral rituals for Elizabeth of York and Jane indicates
the importance of the final celebration of their lives both in a religious
and dynastic sense. It is interesting that when planning the funeral of
Jane, Henry’s officials studied the previous arrangements for Elizabeth
of York’s ritual. Without a doubt, the treatment of Elizabeth in this final
rite, including the double monument in a splendid new lady chapel, pro-
vided her with the best funeral and memorial of all the Tudor consorts.
Although in many respects Katherine of Aragon’s funeral honored her,
Bishop Hilsey’s sermon for her in the Midlands, claiming that she had
voluntarily relinquished her title as queen, negated some of the signifi-
cance of her service. Henry VIII made certain that his subjects and the
international audience understood that a disgraced queen, unable to pro-
vide him with a male heir, would not have the opportunity to be as pub-
licly and splendidly honored as was his mother and his third wife, whose
funerals represented the sovereignty of queenship and its importance to
the royal dynasty. They stand in great contrast to the relatively simple
Protestant funeral in a private chapel of Dowager Queen Katherine Parr,
whose remarriage to a mere baron, although the uncle of Edward VI,
lessened the views of many toward her. Without the presence of a mem-
ber of the nobility, except for her husband’s ward, Lady Jane Grey, her
service in a sense represented the queen’s diminished public status. Her
funeral offered no representation of sovereignty, but finally in the nine-
teenth century, although still in a private place, she lies under a queen’s
memorial, which, with its effigy, is more splendid than those of Anne of
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  233

Cleves at Westminster Abbey, of Katherine of Aragon’s at Peterborough

Castle, and of Jane Seymour’s at Windsor Castle. Still, in her lifetime,
perhaps because Anne of Cleves was of foreign birth, Queen Mary
showed a willingness to honor her with a grand procession and a splen-
did funeral at Westminster Abbey—the house of kings, as it is sometimes
called, but it is also the house of queens.

Notes
1. E.A. Wrigley and R.S. Schofield, The Population History of England,
1541–1871: A Reconstruction (London: Edward Arnold, 1981), pp. 208,
216, 252; Daniel Schäfer, “Medical Representations of Old Age in the
Renaissance: The Influence of Non-Medical Texts,” Growing Old in Early
Modern Europe: Cultural Representations, ed. Erin Campbell (Burlington:
Ashgate, 2006), pp. 11–20; Aki C.L. Beam, “‘Should I as Yet Call
you Old?’ Testing the Boundaries of Female Old Age in Early Modern
England,” Growing Old, pp. 95–116.
2. In making these calculations, the month of the birth and the month of
death were taken into consideration.
3. Ralph Houlbrooke, Death, Religion and the Family in England, 1480–
1750 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 19–20; Neil Samman,
“The Progresses of HenryVIII, 1509–1529,” The Reign of Henry VIII:
Politics, Policy, Piety, ed. Diarmaid MacCulloch (Basingstoke: Macmillan,
1995), p. 71; Scottish Record Office, Letters and Papers, Foreign and
Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J.S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and
R.H. Brodie, 21 vols., in 35 (London: HMSO, 1862–1932), XIX-ii, 242
(hereafter LP); Janel Mueller, ed., Katherine Parr: Complete Works and
Correspondence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), p. 71.
4. Georges Vigarello, Concepts of Cleanliness: Changing Attitudes in France
Since the Middle Ages, tr. Jean Birrell (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988), pp. 1–13.
5. Christopher Daniell, Death and Burial in Medieval England, 1066–1550
(London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 1, 29–32; Clare Gittings, Death, Burial,
and the Individual in Early Modern England (London: Croom Helm,
1984), p. 9; Houlbrooke, Death, pp. 208–209.
6. Houlbrooke, Death, pp. 81–146.
7. Houlbrooke, Death, pp. 48–58, 147–149; Daniell, Death, pp. 32–43.
8. Daniell, Death, p. 44; Houlbrooke, Death, pp. 255–256.
9. John Carmi Parsons, “‘Never Was a Body Buried in England with Such
Solemnity and Honour: The Burials and Posthumous Commemorations
234  R.M. Warnicke

of English Queens to 1500,” Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe:

Proceedings of a Conference Held at King’s College London, April, 1995,
ed. Anne Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997), pp. 317–327.
10. For the choice of principal mourner, see Gittings, Death, p. 175.
11. Nicholas Harris Nicolas, ed., The Privy Purse Expenditures of Elizabeth of
York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth (New York: A Facsimile
edition published by Barnes & Noble, 1972), pp. 96–97; Charles
Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London (London: Alan Sutton, 1977), pp.
258–259. If Infants died before their mothers were churched, they were
buried in their chrisoms. See Gittings, Death, p. 52.
12. Olivia Blood, The Royal Way of Death (London: Constable, 1986),
p. 30; The account of her funeral is based on “Funeral Ceremonies of
Queen Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV and wife to Henry VII,” The
Antiquarian Repertory, ed. Francis Grose and Thomas Astle, new edi-
tion, 4 vols.(London: Edward Jeffery, 1807–1808), IV, 454–463. See
also, Norman Davis, “Two Early Sixteenth-Century Accounts of Royal
Occasions,” Notes & Queries, 218(1973), 122–131.
13.  Lady Cecily Plantagenet, the oldest daughter, could not attend the
funeral because in 1502 as the widow of the king’s half-uncle, John
Welles, Viscount Welles, she had married a commoner, Thomas Kyme of
Friskney, thereby offending Henry. Her sister, Lady Katherine, the princi-
pal mourner, had married Sir William Courtenay, but he could not attend
the funeral because he had been attainted and imprisoned for aiding a
Yorkist claimant, Edmund de la Pole, duke of Suffolk. The third sister,
Lady Anne, wife of Thomas, future third duke of Norfolk, participated in
the funeral, but the youngest sister, Lady Bridget, a nun, seems to have
remained at Dartford nunnery.
14. Ralph Giesey, The Royal Funeral Ceremony in Renaissance France
(Genéve: E. Droz, 1960), pp. 26–27, 81–84; W.H. St. John Hope, “On
the Funeral Effigies of the Kings and Queens of England;” with a “Note
on the Westminster Identifications by Joseph Armitage Robinson,”
Archaeologia, 60 (1907), 517–570; Gittings, Death, p. 223, said that the
leather was sheep skin; Phillip Lindley, “‘The Singular Meditacions and
praiers of al the Holie Companie of Heven:’ Sculptural Functions and
Forms in Henry VII’s Chapel,” Westminster Abbey: The Lady Chapel of
Henry VII, ed. Tim Tatton-Brown and Richard Mortimer (Woodbridge:
Boydell Press, 2003), p. 288. See also Julian Litton, “The Funeral Effigy:
Its Function and Purpose,” The Funeral Effigies of Westminster Abbey, ed.
Anthony Harvey and Richard Mortimer (Woodbridge: Boydell Press,
1994), pp. 45–58, 121–124, 175–187.
15. For the quotation, see Phillis Cunnington and Catherine Lucas, Costume
for Births, Marriages, and Deaths (London: Adam and Charles Black,
1972), p. 139; Kingsford, Chronicles of London, pp. 258–259.
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  235

16. Grose, Repertory, p. 662, specified that the ladies placed 37 palls on the
effigy, but his lists of the ladies and the number of their palls did not
quite add up to 37.
17. Margaret Condon, “God Save the King! Piety, Propaganda, and the
Perpetual Memorial” Lady Chapel, p. 87; Samuel Bentley, ed. Excerpta
Historia or Illustrations of English History (London: Samuel Bentley,
1831), p. 130; Litton, “Funeral effigies,” p. 5; Gittings, Death, p. 19;
John Mayor, ed., The English Works of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, E.
S. Vol. 27 (London: Early English Text Society, 1876), p. 306.
18. Tim Tatton-Brown, “The Building of the New Chapel: The First Phase,”
St. George’s Chapel, Windsor: History and Heritage, ed. Nigel Saul and
Tatton-Brown (Stanbridge: Dovecote Press, 2010), pp. 69–80.
19. Condon, “God Save the King!” pp. 60–69, 87; Fynes Moryson,
An Itinerary Containing His Ten Yeeres Travell Through the Twelve
Dominions of Germany, Bohmerland, Sweitzerland, Netherland,
Denmarke, Poland, Italy, Turky, France, England, Scotland & Ireland, 4
vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1907–1908), III, 483.
20. LP, XII-ii, 970, 1012, 1042, 1060.
21. LP, XII-ii, 1060; John Carmi Parsons, “Eleanor [Eleanor of Castile]
(1241–1290), queen of England, consort of Edward I,” Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter ODNB), www.oxforddnb.
com (accessed May 15, 2016); Litton, “Funeral Effigies,” p. 6.
22. LP, XII-ii, 1060; Barrett Beer, “Jane [née Jane Seymour] (1508/1509–
1537), Queen of England, third consort of Henry VIII,” ODNB, www.
oxforddnb.com (accessed March 20, 2005). See also, Anonymous, The
Windsor Guide; Containing a Description of the Town and Castle…an
historical account of the monuments, &c. in St. George’s Chapel, new edi-
tion, corrected and enlarged (Windsor: C. Knight, 1793); Tatton-Brown,
“Building of the New Chapel,” p. 77.
23. Lindley, ‘Singular Meditacions,’ pp. 268–269; Wilson, “The Functional
Design of Henry VII’s Chapel: A Reconstruction,” Lady Chapel, p. 187,
n. 97.
24. LP, X, 59.
25. LP, X, 28, 37, 59–60; Retha M. Warnicke, “Willoughby [née de Salinas],
Maria, Lady Willoughby de Eresby (d. 1539), noblewoman and cour-
tier,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed May 15, 2016).
26. LP, X, 37, 141; C.S.L. Davies and John Edwards, “Katherine [Catalina,
Catherine, Katherine of Aragon] (1485–1536), queen of England, first
consort of Henry VIII,” ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed May 15,
2016).
27. LP, X, 284. See also C.H. Hartshorne, “The Obsequies of Katherine of
Aragon,” Archaeological Journal, 11(1854), 353–367; Litton, “Funeral
Effigies,” p. 6.
236  R.M. Warnicke

28. Simon Gunton, History of the Church of Peterborough, ed. Simon Parrick

(London: Richard Chiswell, 1686), p. 57.
29. “Peterborough Cathedral’s Spanish Queen,” http://www.bbc.com/
news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-17337318 (accessed May 30, 2016).
30. LP, X, 216; Edward Hall, Henry VIII, intro. Charles Whibley, 2 vols.
(London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904), II, 77, for the value of the noble
in 1526. For Mary’s will, see David Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), pp. 370–380 and for her funeral, see
Carolyn Colbert, “‘’Mary Hath Chosen the Best Part:’ The Bishop of
Winchester’s Sermon for Mary Tudor,” Catholic Renewal and Protestant
Resistance in Marian England, eds. Elizabeth Evenden and Vivienne
Westbrook (Burlington: Ashgate, 2016), pp. 273–292.
31. Martin Hume, The Wives of Henry the Eighth and the Parts They Played in
History (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1905), p. 252.
32. LP, X, 128.
33. Retha M. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at
the Court o Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989),
pp. 226.
34. Ibid., pp. 228–229.
35. Ibid.; Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the
Tudors, from A. D. 1485–1559, ed. William Douglas Hamilton, new series,
vols. XI and XX (Westminster: Camden society, 1875–1877), XI, 41.
36. Nicholas Pocock, ed., Records of the Reformation, 2 vols. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1870), I, 22–27; LP, X, 715, 864, 876 for the earl. See
also, Warnicke, Rise and Fall, p. 230.
37. T.N.A. SP 70/7; f. 6; Joseph Stevenson, ed., Calendar of State Papers,
Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth, 1558–1559: Preserved in the
State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, 22 vols.
(Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1966–1969), I, 1303.
38. Hall, Henry VIII, II, 268–269; for another interpretation of her last
speech, see Nadia Bishai, “‘Which thing had not been seen,’: The Rituals
and Rhetoric of the Execution of Anne Boleyn, England’s First Criminal
Queen,” The Rituals and Rhetoric of Queenship: Medieval to Early
Modern, ed. Liz Oakley-Brown and Louise Wilkinson (Dublin: Four
Courts Press, 2009), pp. 171–185.
39. Louise Fradenburg, City, Tournament, Arts of Rule in Late Medieval
Scotland (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), p. 79.
40. LP, XI, 381; Bentley, Excerpta, pp. 261–265; Wriothesley, Chronicle, XI,
41; for the quotation, see F.J. Furnivall, ed., Ballads From Manuscripts, 2
vols. (London: Ballad Society, 1868–1873), I, 407.
41. Warnicke, Rise and Fall, p. 234; LP, X, 910; Doyle Bell, Notices of the
Historic Persons Buried in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula (London: J.
Murray, 1877), p. 107.
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  237

42.  Claire Ridgway, “Anne Boleyn’s Execution Site - The Anne Boleyn
Files,” http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/anne-boleyns-execution-site
(accessed May 26, 2016).
43.  Jean Kaulek, ed., Correspondance Politique de MM. De Castillon et
Marillac: Ambassadeurs de France en Angleterre, 1537–1542 (Paris: Felix
Alcan, 1885), p. 5.
44.  This information about Katherine Howard is taken from Retha M.
Warnicke, Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, and
Commoners (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), pp. 45-76.
45. Antonio de Guevara, Bishop of Guadix and Mondoûedo, The Life of a
Courtier and a Commendacion of the Life of the Labouring Man, trans. Sir
Francis Bryan (London: Richard Grafton, 1548), p. 91.
46. T.N.A. SP 1/167, fs. 157–159.
47.  LP, XVI, 1323, 1334.
48. LP, XVI, 1331, 1333.
49.  Historical Manuscript Commission. Calendar of the Manuscripts of the
Marquis of Bath Preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire, 3 vols. (Dublin, HMSO,
1904–1980), II, 8–10; T.N.A. SP 1/167, fs. l35–138.
50.  T.N.A. SP 1/167, f. 14; see also LP, XVI, 1134; Warnicke, Wicked
Women, pp. 69–70.
51. Kaulek, Marillac, pp. 367–377.
52. T.N.A. SP 1/167, f.155; SP 1/168, fs. 10, 87–89, 9l, 97, 104, 158; LP
XVI, 1470–1471; LP XVII, 28, II, C. 21.
53. Wriothesley, Chronicle, X. 131–132; LP XVII, 28, II, C. 21; Stanford
Lehmberg, The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII, 1536–1547 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 144–147.
54. Wriothesley, Chronicle, X, 133–134; Hall, Henry, II, 314; Bell, Notices,
122-6; LP, XVII, 106; Kaulek, Marillac, pp. 388–389. See also, Diana
Tankard, “The Johnson Family and the Reformation,” Historical
Research, 80(2007), 469–490.
55. Gilbert Burnet, The History of the Reformation of the Church of England,
3 vols. (London: A Rhanes for R. Gunne and J. Smith and W. Bruce,
1683), III, no. 72, pp. 130–131; The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D.D.,
Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Henry Jenkyns, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1883), I, 307-10; Warnicke, Wicked Women, pp. 54, 56.
56. T.N.A. SP 1/167, fs. 138, 158–159.
57. Warnicke, Wicked Women, pp. 75–76.
58. Joel Rosenthal, Patriarchy and Families of Privilege in Fifthteenth-Century
England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), pp. 178–
182.
59. Susan James, Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen (Aldershot: Ashgate:
1999), pp. 285–293.
238  R.M. Warnicke

60. Ibid., pp. 293–306. Although Edward Hall knew about the statute, it
had disappeared. Whether Katherine Parr or her new husband were
aware of it is uncertain, but rather than tell the Lord Protector or the
king’s council, she persuaded Seymour to obtain the king’s permission to
marry instead. For the statute and this information, see Ralph Griffiths,
“Queen Katherine of Valois and a Missing Statute of the Realm,” The
Law Quarterly Review, 93(1977), 248–258.
61. James, Kateryn, pp. 314–323; Narasingha P. Sil, “Denny, Sir Anthony
(1501–1549), courtier,”ODNB, www.oxforddnb.com (accessed May 31,
2016).
62. James, Kateryn, pp. 329–332.
63. College of Arms MS. RR 21/c, fs. 98–99; printed in Agnes Strickland,
Lives of the Queens of England From the Norman Conquest, 12 vols.
(London: Henry Coleman, 1840–1848), V, 123–124.
64. Treadway Nash, “Observations on the Time and Place of Burial of Queen
Katherine Parr,” Archaeologia, IX(1789), 1–9.
65. Gavin Stamp, “Scott, Sir George Gilbert (1811–1878), architect,” ODNB,
www.oxforddnb.com (accessed May 31, 2016); “Sudeley Castle, the Curious
Life and Death of Katherine Parr,” http://tudorhistory.org/places/sudeley
(accessed May 31, 2016); “Images for Tomb of Catherine Parr,” https://
www.google.com/search?q=tomb+of+catherine+parr (accessed May 31,
2016).
66. Warnicke, Wicked Women, pp. 91–95, for the controversy about fratricide.
67. Retha M. Warnicke, The Marrying of Anne of Cleves: Royal Protocol in
Tudor England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp.
236–242.
68. Ibid., pp. 244–245.
69. Ibid., p. 252.
70. Bentley, Excerpta, p. 295.
71. For the letters, Anne Crawford, ed., Letters of the Queens of England,
1100-1547 (Stroud: Sutton, 1994), p. 205; T.N.A. SP 11/4; J.F.
Merritt, The Social World of Early Modern Westminster: Abbey, Court, and
Community (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), p. 553.
72. Bentley, Excerpta, pp. 303–308.
73. Ibid., pp. 308–313.
74.  A. Tindal Hart, “\Dissolution and Revival,” A House of Kings: The
Official History of Westminster Abbey, ed. Edward Carpenter (New York:
John Day Company, 1966), pp. 107–131.
75. Bentley, Excerpta, pp. 295, 306–308.
76. Theodore Haveus, “Oxford Index: A Search and Discovery Gateway,” http://
oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095924771
 7  DEATH AND BURIAL  239

(accessed June 2, 2016); “Anne of Cleves Tomb,” http://www.westminster-

abbey.org/archive/our-history/royals/burials/anne-of-cleves (accessed June
2, 2016).
77. Hunt “Westminster College: Elizabeth and Stuart Times,” House of Kings,
pp. 131–150.
78. “Anne of Cleves Tomb,” http://www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/
our-history/royals/burials/anne-of-cleves.
 CHAPTER 8

Conclusion

This is the first book to examine, compare, and contrast the reigns of
the Tudor consorts, rather than providing discrete biographical details
about them, as previous authors of, for example, the many works on
Henry VIII’s six wives have done. The only publication that turns to this
genre for the Tudors is my article in History Compass, which does not
include a study of his mother, Elizabeth of York.1 She belongs in this
book because as the first Tudor queen, her reign in many ways offers
a standard for evaluating those of her daughters-in-law. Following the
introductory chapter, Chap. 2 began with a discussion of the two Tudor
kings’ searches for their brides and their subsequent weddings, then
noted the lack of official celebrations honoring them, and finally ended
with the coronations of three of the queens. Because of political cir-
cumstances, the process by which these two kings chose their consorts
deviated from the methods that other late medieval and early modern
European rulers adopted in making their selections. Normally, kings
wed foreign-born ladies after protracted diplomatic negotiations with
their royal relatives, but both Henry VII and his son found that reper-
cussions from the English civil war and from international religious dis-
putes meant that only two of their seven queens actually belonged to
foreign dynasties. Henry VII, of course, wed Elizabeth, the Yorkist heir-
ess, while his son, after marrying Katherine of Aragon, turned to four
Englishwomen and a foreign duke’s daughter. As Katherine of Aragon
remained in England as the widow of Arthur, prince of Wales, and as
Anne of Cleves arrived in the realm during the Christmas holy days and

© The Author(s) 2017 241

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7_8
242  R.M. Warnicke

without a dowry, neither of these marriages had the protracted celebra-

tions that normally occurred at royal weddings to foreign-born brides,
like the previous one of Katherine and Arthur. Only Elizabeth of York,
among the Tudor queens, had a public wedding at Westminster Abbey,
but without the customary official festivities. Later, Henry VIII married
all his wives privately, also without public festivities, except for the usual
events at court on Epiphany night, after his and Anne of Cleves’ wed-
ding earlier that morning in 1540.
Furthermore, partly for political reasons, the ritual of the three queens
who enjoyed coronations differed significantly. Elizabeth’s somewhat
unruly coronation occurred at a time of political dissension and even rebel-
lion caused by the ongoing attempts of her Yorkist male cousins to obtain
the crown, while Anne Boleyn’s took place amid national and interna-
tional controversies over Henry’s attack on the English church because he
failed to win Clement VII’s approval for the dissolution of his marriage to
Katherine. Anne’s coronation entry into London contained pageants that
symbolized the empire which his Statute of Appeals claimed for England,
denying, among others, the appeals of marital disputes to the papacy. She
was the last Tudor queen consort to enjoy a coronation ceremony.
Her predecessor, Katherine of Aragon’s, coronation with her hus-
band shortly after their wedding in 1509, despite her heritage as a king’s
daughter, emphasized her dependent royal status more than those of the
other two crowned Tudor queens because she shared the honor of that
ritual with her husband, who held the highest social and political posi-
tion in the realm. Thus, she turned and did obeisance to him during the
ceremony. In addition, because her crowning took place in Westminster
Abbey shortly after his, it was inevitable that compared to his, hers
proved to be of lesser significance. This is not to argue that she person-
ally would have preferred to have her coronation delayed so that dur-
ing the service she could attract the complete attention of the witnesses
there. Everyone accepted that husbands held the highest position in the
family, regardless of its social standing. Even so, she gained the public
and religious status as the most important woman in the kingdom, a
position that many other noblewomen envied. The point is simply that
in the other two Tudor queens’ coronations, they did not have to share
the honored position with their husbands, who did not accompany them
during the coronation entries and who sat in private enclosures watch-
ing their crownings at the abbey and enjoying their customary feasts at
Westminster Hall.
 8 CONCLUSION  243

Chapter 3 covered the queens’ households, which were situated sepa-

rately at court from their husband’s lodging. It included a discussion of
the income that they received to support them from their jointure or
dower, then examined their numerous attendants, servants, and officials.
It investigated how wealthy and influential queens, because of their des-
ignation as femme sole, could complete transactions without the king’s or
his council’s approval that might affect the crown’s financial well-being
and even England’s economy. Their jointure estates derived from vari-
ous sources, especially the duchy of Lancaster, but later Henry VIII trans-
ferred some of the property of individuals executed for treason and from
the monastic dissolution to his wives. These estates elevated them to the
status of the kingdom’s greatest landowners; their councils collected their
income and assisted the queens in handling disputes among their tenants
and managing their extensive patronage in the manors, estates, and other
property assigned to them. The documented personal expenditures of
Elizabeth of York and Anne of Cleves provide evidence of how they spent
some of that income on their family, attendants, and amusements. The
king’s and queen’s appointed officials and servants at court were not com-
pletely separated from each other. Some served both the monarch and his
consort; others moved back and forth between their households. One of
the major differing factors in their servants was that only the queens pos-
sessed female attendants, including between five and seven young maidens
of honor, who had sought the position in hopes of attracting an appro-
priate husband. It was the consorts’ duty to protect these maidens from
predatory men at court, although this was not always successful. Henry
VIII chose three of them to be his consorts, and one of the men accused
of having adulterous relations with Anne Boleyn had actually gone to her
side of the court to flirt with her maiden, Mary Shelton.
Their royal husbands also spent thousands of pounds sterling on rich
and splendid clothing, gold, plate, and jewels, not only for themselves
but also for the use of their consorts. They viewed these expenditures
as necessary, since the honor of kings in England, like that of monarchs
and rulers in other Christian countries and realms, depended on their
endowing their consorts with revenue sufficient to allow them to live
like queens in splendid apartments, wearing cloth of gold gowns, and
adorned with rich jewelry. When three months after her secret marriage
to Henry in January 1533 Anne Boleyn processed to the chapel royal
wearing rich clothing and splendid jewels, all recognized that she had
achieved royal status.
244  R.M. Warnicke

Chapter 4 investigated the various religious rituals at court that estab-

lished godly examples for the kingdom and discussed the intersection of
religion and childbirth. Both the king and the queen possessed a private
chapel or closet in their households where they heard mass daily and
performed other religious devotions. They also marched in procession
to the chapel royal on special days, such as Palm Sunday, and observed
Maundy Thursday. When the queens left on summer progresses their
almoners distributed money to the poor in the towns through which
they passed. This practice belonged to a religious culture that viewed
good deeds such as these as important steps toward ultimately, after
death, moving them through purgatory to heaven. They also believed
that their religious devotions would aid them in giving birth to healthy
children. Thus, both Elizabeth of York and Katherine of Aragon went on
pilgrimages to, for example, the Lady of Walsingham, to pray for a preg-
nancy that might result in the successful delivery of an heir.
Besides highlighting the medical beliefs and folklore concerning
childbirth, and considering the possibility that it was thought that God
would punish sinners with deformed children, this chapter detailed the
various special rituals and ceremonies surrounding the birth of royal and
noble children. All pregnant queens chose special lying-in chambers,
where they remained secluded with their female attendants until after
childbirth and the subsequent churching that purified them and made it
possible for them to return to regular court life. Neither they nor their
royal husbands participated in the christenings of their children because
godparents played the most important roles at these rituals. This chap-
ter further highlighted the involvement, or the lack of involvement, of
these seven queens in the lives of their children and of their relatives.
Mostly Elizabeth of York set the example here, as the only Tudor queen
to have two healthy sons, one of whom lived to adulthood, as well as two
daughters who also reached adulthood. It is evident from her privy purse
expenditures and from other various royal documents that she supervised
the upbringing of her daughters and that Henry saw to the careers of his
sons, although at a distance because the children lived in nurseries sepa-
rate from the court. Katherine Parr was the only stepmother who had
an active interaction with Henry’s children by his first three wives. She
encouraged their education and their scholarship, but mostly from afar,
as the two younger children did not live regularly at court, except dur-
ing the period she served as the realm’s regent, but Mary, closer in age
to her stepmother, attended her frequently. Later, after Henry’s death
 8 CONCLUSION  245

and during her brother’s reign, Elizabeth resided for about one year with
Katherine Parr and her new husband, Thomas, Lord Seymour of Sudeley.
This chapter ended with examples of the grief that royal parents felt
when they lost their children, especially their male heirs. One of every
five or six infants did not survive its first year of life. Elizabeth of York
had better luck than her six daughters-in-law, giving birth to a son who
succeeded as king in 1509. Only Jane Seymour of Henry VIII’s wives
had a son who survived his first year and who succeeded to the throne,
but her son, as had Prince Arthur earlier, died in his teenage years.
Neither she nor Henry lived to witness what would have been a tre-
mendous tragedy for them both. Katherine of Aragon, as well as Anne
Boleyn, could not have anticipated that their daughters would one day
become queens regnant. Elizabeth of York also did not survive long
enough to know for certain that her daughters, Margaret and Mary,
would become the queens of Scotland and France, respectively.
Chapter 5 turned to the public roles of the consorts and their inter-
action with their husbands in the larger space of the court and gov-
ernment, including patronage beyond the offices they possessed in
their households and dower lands. It suggested that the queens could
have great influence with their husbands and challenged the diplomatic
reports that have formed what has survived in many modern historical
studies of the stereotypical characterizations of Elizabeth of York, who
was said to have been mistreated by Margaret, countess of Richmond,
her mother-in-law, and Anne Boleyn, who is often characterized either as
a courtly lover or as an adulteress. The consorts’ diplomatic opportuni-
ties varied but no doubt exists that those with international relatives had
more input and influence than those without family connections abroad.
Katherine of Aragon’s brief appointment as her father’s resident ambas-
sador in England had more far-reaching implications than did the usual
queens’ roles in foreign policy decision making. Because their husbands’
councilors handled negotiation for their children’s marriages, only
Katherine of Aragon’s opinion was sought about her daughter’s arrange-
ments, probably because of her status as an aunt of Emperor Charles V.
The Tudor kings and their ministers did consult with their wives, and
in Henry VII’s case also his mother, Lady Richmond, concerning the
appropriate age for their young daughters to leave home and wed kings
in foreign realms.
The consorts had other public duties. They functioned as intercessors,
although in the Tudor period this procedure seems to have become a
246  R.M. Warnicke

somewhat routine matter after Katherine of Aragon’s May Day interces-

sion for the rioting apprentices in 1517. The queens’ important appoint-
ments as regents furthermore provided them with vehicles for input into
governmental decisions. After he declared war against France in 1513
and 1544, Henry VIII appointed as regents his consorts at those times,
Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr, respectively, to serve during his
absence abroad when conducting his campaigns against Francis I. Henry
ordered his sixth queen to seek more assistance from the council that he
appointed to assist her than he had required of her predecessor as regent,
perhaps because the first regent had more governmental experience, as a
diplomat, for example, than the last regent and had important relatives
abroad. Unlike his more lenient instructions for Katherine of Aragon,
Henry required Katherine Parr to obtain the signature of two of her
councilors on relevant documents for specified governmental actions,
such as expenditures.
Katherine of Aragon’s, Anne Boleyn’s, and Katherine Parr’s influ-
ence on religious patronage and interaction with chaplains and prelates
attests to their pious leadership during the English Reformation. The
first Katherine patronized Christian humanists, especially Bishop Fisher
and Juan Luis Vives, who tutored her daughter. Anne Boleyn also sup-
ported humanist thought and displayed a special interest in biblical stud-
ies, but she had little interaction with the notable humanists in England.
Anne also favored Henry’s royal supremacy and patronized clerics, such
as Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Shaxton, who belonged to the English
evangelical movement, preached at court, and gained bishoprics. Finally,
Katherine Parr wrote religious books and promoted further reform of
the church, but she seems to have been less attracted to the supporters of
ancient secular literature than these two predecessors, particularly Greek
scholarship at Athens.
Chapter 6 examined the nonreligious celebrations and festivals in
which the consorts participated, especially tournaments, maskings, dip-
lomatic greetings, entries, and calendar holidays, such as New Year’s gift
giving, the Order of the Garter ceremonies, and May Day traditions.
In these celebrations, however, they seemed to have mostly acted as
prominent members of a watchful and appreciative audience, although
Katherine of Aragon did sometimes deliver prizes to the champions
who competed well in the war games. During the masque amusements,
for example, while Henry VIII danced with ladies in the audience, his
wives, especially Katherine of Aragon, kept seated and again seem simply
 8 CONCLUSION  247

to have witnessed the merriment. Even at the Field of Cloth of Gold,

when Francis I visited with Katherine of Aragon while Henry dined with
Queen Claude, the French king danced with some of the ladies but not
with the English queen. At other times, such as the entry entertain-
ments, the consorts had little interaction with the performers and musi-
cians except to walk or ride by them, displaying their royal approval.
Evidence proves, however, that they were not always only witnesses.
In England, in Henry’s absence, Katherine Howard danced with Anne
of Cleves and some of his gentlemen at the New Year’s festivities in
1540, and Katherine Parr, while entertaining a foreign guest in 1546
in her presence chamber, also danced despite feeling somewhat unwell.
Regardless of whether their activity was only that of observing the mer-
riment, their presence was considered absolutely essential for the success
of court festivals and amusements. As Edward Hall’s chronicle, quoted
in Chap. 6, laments about the December season in 1531 after Henry
had earlier rusticated Katherine of Aragon: “This year the king kept his
Christmas at Greenwich with great solemnity, but all men said that there
was no mirth in that Christmas because the queen and the ladies were
absent.”2
Chapter 7 turned to the consorts’ final days and the loss of their posi-
tions, either by deaths or annulments. It highlighted how the state of
medicine remained mainly a religious matter, for God was viewed as the
great healer. Blaming disease and death on sinful actions and depending
on religious devotions and the absolution of the priests to gain admis-
sion to paradise, many people died at early ages because of the lack of
physicians’ knowledge about how diseases spread and how they might
be eradicated. The final ritual of most people followed a similar pattern
after death: embalmment and a vigil before a funeral and burial in either
the churchyard or the church, and then a feast. Although the funerals
of reigning queens were more elaborate, with their entrails buried sepa-
rately, their mourners much greater in number, and the services more
intricate, the core of the funeral remained rather similar for all social
classes in which criminal charges were not an issue.
The differences in how the Tudor kings treated their deceased wives
depended on, in Henry VIII’s case with his first three consorts at least,
whether the consummation of his marriage led to the birth of a male
child who lived past infancy. Thus, he honored only Jane Seymour
as his queen and planned to be buried with her even while married to
Katherine Parr. The splendor of the funeral rituals for Elizabeth of York
248  R.M. Warnicke

and Jane, both mothers of sons, indicates the importance of the final
celebration of their lives both in a religious and dynastic sense, celebrat-
ing her sovereignty. It is interesting that when planning the funeral of
Jane, Henry’s officials studied the previous arrangements for Elizabeth
of York’s ritual. Without a doubt, the latter’s treatment in this final rite,
including the double monument in the new lady chapel at Westminster
Abbey, provided her with the most splendid funeral and memorial of all
the Tudor consorts. Although in some respects Katherine of Aragon’s
funeral honored her, Bishop Hilsey’s sermon for her at Peterborough
Cathedral in the Midlands, at least a three-day ride from Westminster
or London, in which he claimed that she had voluntarily relinquished
her title as queen, negated some of the significance of her ritual. Even
her friend, Eustace Chapuys, Imperial ambassador, refused to attend a
service that honored her only as the princess of Wales. The funerals of
Elizabeth and Jane stand in great contrast to the Protestant funeral in a
private chapel at Sudeley of Katherine Parr, whose remarriage to a mere
baron, although the uncle of Edward VI, lessened the esteem of many
contemporaries toward her. Her service in a sense represented, without
the presence of members of the nobility, except for her husband’s ward
and her principal mourner, Lady Jane Grey, the dowager’s diminished
public status. Finally, Henry VIII had deserted Anne of Cleves, claiming
she was already married, and Edward VI’s government had neglected her
financially, but perhaps partly because of her foreign birth, Mary Tudor
honored her with a grand procession from Chelsea Manor, where she
died, to Westminster, and then a splendid funeral at the abbey. This first
English queen regnant also was able to celebrate the return of her king-
dom to Roman Catholicism by holding Anne’s royal funeral at the abbey
that her father had dissolved and that she had restored.
From their marriages and coronations to their various family and
public activities, the queens played significant roles. In their absence,
the court represented only half of England, since the only gentlewomen
resident at court belonged to her household. There she dispensed
money, purchased various items so that she could live like a queen, saw
to the needs especially of her daughters, and held private religious func-
tions. For the most part, the public celebrations required her attend-
ance because the chivalric notion that the men competed in war games
to honor their wives and loved ones still held sway. And for those who
were reigning queens when they died, the two Tudor monarchs pro-
vided magnificent rituals. Those who died in disgrace, Anne Boleyn and
 8 CONCLUSION  249

Katherine Howard, lacked funerals, and even dowager queens, as rep-

resented here only by Katherine Parr, did not enjoy public rituals. The
amazing exception to this example was Anne of Cleves, who was not
even a dowager but only a divorcee. Nevertheless, her former stepdaugh-
ters chose to honor her publicly at Westminster Abbey with a funeral and
then with a splendid monument.
It is a useful exercise to study the reigns of Elizabeth of York and her
six daughters-in-law because it provides insights into the private and
public lives of royal women and into how their activities can be seen as
representing both the wives’ family roles and their sovereign roles—not
the ultimate authority, but extremely important secondary ones that
could and often did enhance the rule of their royal husbands. To feel
whole and complete, the court and country needed the presence at
the apex of society of a queen and her ladies, who provided models of
womanhood for the realms’ female subjects. The people appeared satis-
fied when the members of the royal family seemed at peace with each
other and were living the expected life of the royalty, as exemplified at
the entries when they joyfully welcomed the court into their towns. A
fractured court, a questionable succession, or spousal problems, as early
in Henry VII’s reign and later after the death of Elizabeth, and from
1527 to 1537 and 1540 to 1543 in Henry VIII’s reign, helped to create
uneasiness in their subjects that could only be resolved when the royal
family was once again together at court, furnished with both a queen and
a male heir, as in 1543, when the king wed Katherine Parr, making it
seem, outwardly to the public at least, that the kingdom and the dynasty
were secure and stable again.

Notes
1. Retha M. Warnicke “Queenship: Politics and Gender in Tudor England,”
History Compass, 4(2006), 203–227. (www.history-compass.com).
2. Edward Hall, Henry VIII, intro. Charles Whibley, 2 vols. (London: T.C. &
E. C. Jack, 1904) II, 202.
 Further Reading

Printed Documents
Anonymous.OJhesu Endles Swetnes of Louying Soules. Westminster: William
Caxton, 1491.
Anstis, John, ed. The Register of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, 2 vols.
London: John Barber, 1724.
Ascoli, Georges, ed. La Grande-Bretagne Devant L’Opinion Française Depuis
La Guerre de Cent Ans Jusqu’a La Fin Du XVI Siècle. Paris: Librairie
Universitaire J. Gamber, 1927.
Bacon, Francis. The Historie of the Reigne of King Henrie the Seaventh. London:
W. Stanley, 1622.
Bain, Joseph, Grant Simpson, James Galbraith, eds. Calendar of Documents
Relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots, 13 vols. Edinburgh: H.M.
General Register Office, 1989–1969.
Batty, Bartholomew. The Christian Man’s Closet, Wherein Is Conteined a Large
Discourse of the Godly Training up of Children. Translated by William Loweth.
London: Thomas Dawson and Gregory Leton, 1581.
Bentley, Samuel, ed. Excerpta Historia or Illustrations of English History. London:
Samuel Bentley, 1831.
_____. Extracts from the Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry the Seventh from
December 7, 1491 to March 20, 1505. London: William Pickering, 1827.
Barker, William. The Nobility of Women. Edited by R. Warwick Bond. London:
Roxburgh Club, 1908.
Boaistuau, Pierre. Certaine Secrete Wonders of Nature Containing a Descriptio[n]
of Sundry Strange Things, Seming Monstrous in Our Eyes and Judgement,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 251

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7
252  Further Reading

Bicause We Are Not Priuie to the Reasons of Them. Translated by E. Fenton.

second edition. London: Henry Bynneman, 1569.
Bruce, John and Thomas Perowne, eds. Correspondence of Matthew Parker,
Archbishop of Canterbury, Parker Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1853.
Bull, Henry. Christian Praiers and Holie Meditations as Wel for Private and
Publique Exercises. second edition. London: Henry Middleton, 1570.
Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury. The History of the Reformation of the Church
of England, 3 vols. in 6 parts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1816.
_______. The History of the Reformation of the Church of England, 3 vols.
London: A Rhanes for R. Gunne and J. Smith and W. Bruce, 1683.
Byrne, Muriel St. Clare ed. The Lisle Letters, 6 vols. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981.
Camden, William. Annales: The Historie of the Most Renowned and Victorious
Princess Elizabeth, Late Queen of England. Translated by Robert Norton. sec-
ond edition. London: Thomas Harper for Benjamin Fisher, 1635.
Campbell, William ed. Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII from
Original Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office, 2 vols. New York:
Kraus Reprint, 1965.
Chartier, Alain. Here Foloweth the Copye of a Lettre Whyche Maistre Alayn
Charetier Wrote to Hys Brother. second edition. Westminster: William Caxton,
1483.
Chelidonius, Tigurimus, A Most Excellent Hystorie of the Institution and First
Beginning of Christian Princes, and the Originall of Kingdomes. Translated by
James Chillester. London: H. Bynneman, 1571.
Clifford, Henry. The Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria. Translated by Canon
E. E. Estcourt. Edited by Joseph Stephenson. London: Burns & Oates, 1887.
Cox, John, ed. Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer.
Cambridge: Parker Society, 1843.
______. The Works of Thomas Cranmer. Parker Society, 2 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1844.
Crawford, Anne, ed. Letters of the Queens of England, 1100–1547. Stroud:
Sutton, 1994.
Dowling, Maria, ed. “William Latymer’s Chronickille of Anne Bulleyne.”
Camden Miscellany, XXX, fourth series, vol. 39. London: Royal Historical
Society, 1990.
Ellis, Henry, ed. Original Letters Illustrative of English History, 3 vols. series one.
London: Harding, Triphook and Lepard, 1825.
Erasmus, Desiderius. The Education of a Christian Prince. Translated by Lester
Born. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936.
 Further Reading   253

Fairholt, Frederick, ed. Lord Mayors Pageants: Being a Collection Towards a

History of their Annual Celebrations, 2 vols. London: Percy Society, 1843–
1844.
Fellowes, Edmund, ed. The Knights of the Garter, 1348–1939, With a Complete
List of the Stall-Plates in St. George’s Chapel. London: S.P.C.K., 1939.
Foley, Henry, ed. Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 7 vols. in 8.
London: Burns and Oates, 1875–1883.
Forrest, William. The History of Grisild the Second: A Narrative, in Verse, of the
Divorce of Queen Katharine of Aragon. Edited by W. D. Macray. London:
Whittinghead and Wilkins, 1875.
Foxe, John. The Ecclesiastical History, Containing the Actes and Monuments.
London: John Day, 1570.
Fuller, Thomas. The History of the Worthies of England, 3 vols. London: T.G.W.L.
and W.G. 1662.
Furnivall, Frederick, ed. Ballads from Manuscripts, 2 vols. London: Ballad
Society, 1868–1873.
Gairdner, James ed. Historia Regis Henrici Septimi. London: Longman, 1858.
______. Letters and Papers, Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry
VII, 2 vols. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1863.
______. Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles with Historical Memoranda by John
Stowe. London: Camden Society, 1858.
Giles, J.A., ed. The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, Now First Collected and
Revised With a Biography of the Author, 3 vols. in 4. New York: AMS Press,
1965.
Great Britain. Statutes of the Realm, 9 vols. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1963.
Great Britain, Record Commission. State Papers of Henry VIII. 11 vols. London:
G. Eyre and A Strahan, 1830–1852.
Grosart, Alexander, ed. The Works in Verse and Prose of Nicholas Breton, 2 vols.
New York: AMS Press reprint, 1966.
Grose, Francis and Thomas Astle, eds. The Antiquarian Repertory, 4 vols. new
edition. London: Edward Jeffery, 1807.
Guevara, Antonio de, Bishop of Guadix and Mondoûedo. The Life of a Courtier
and a Commendacion of the Life of the Labouring Man. Translated by Sir
Francis Bryan. London: Richard Grafton, 1548.
Guillim, John. A Display of Heraldrie, second edition. London: Ralph Mab,
1610.
Gunton, Simon., ed. History of the Church of Peterborough. London: Richard
Chiswell, 1686.
Hall, Edward. Henry VIII. Edited by Charles Whibley, 2 vols. London: T.C. &
E.C. Jack, 1904.
Harrington, William. In This Book Are Commendations of Matrimony With the
Declaration of All Impediments. London: J.Skot, 1528.
254  Further Reading

Hays, Denis, trans. The Anglia Historia of Polydore Vergil, A.D. 1485–1537,
Royal Historical Society, vol. 74. London: Royal Historical Society, 1950.
Hayward, Maria, ed. Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII. London: Maney,
2007.
_______. The Great Wardrobe Accounts of Henry VII and Henry VIII. London:
London Record Society, Boydell and Brewer Press, 2012.
Hayward, Maria and Philip Ward, eds. The Inventory of King Henry VIII: Volume
II, Textile and Dress. London: Harvey Miller Publishers for The Society of
Antiquaries, 2013.
Herbert of Cherbury. Edward. The Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth.
London: E.G. for Thomas Whitaker, 1649.
Historical Manuscript Commission. Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis
of Bath Preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire, 3 vols. Dublin: HMSO, 1904–1980.
_______.The Manuscripts of His Grace, the Duke of Rutland, G.C.B. Preserved at
Belvoir Castle, 4 vols. London: HMSO, 1888–1905.
______. The Manuscripts of His Grace, the Duke of Portland Preserved at Welbeck
Abbey, 9 vols. London: HMSO, 1891–1905.
Hooke, Christopher. The Child-birth or Woman’s Lecture. London: Thomas
Orwin, 1590.
Ives, John, ed. Select Papers Chiefly Relating to English Antiquities, Published
from the Originals in the Possession of John Ives. London: M. Hingeston, 1773.
Jenkyns, Henry, ed. The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D.D. Archbishop of
Canterbury, 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833.
Jerdan, William ed. “Device for the Coronation of King Henry VII,” Rutland
Papers, Vol XXI. London: Camden Society, 1842.
Kaulek, Jean, ed. Correspondance Politque de M. M. De Castillon et Marillac,
Ambassadeurs de France in Angleterre, 1537–1542. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1885.
Kingsford, Charles, ed. Chronicles of London. Dursley: Alan Sutton, 1977.
Kipling, Gordon, ed. The Receyt of the Ladie Katherine, Early English Text
Society, No. 296. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Lambert, Franz. The Sum of Christianity Gathered out Almost All Places of
Scripture. Translated by Tristram Revel. London: Robert Redman, 1536.
Legg, L G. Wickham ed. English Coronation Records. London: Archibald
Constable and Co., 1901.
Leland, John. Joannis Lelandi antiquarii de rebus Britannicis collectanea. Edited
by Thomas Hearne, 6 vol. London: William and John Richardson, 1770.
Letts, Malcolm, trans. The Travels of Leo of Rozmital through Germany, Flanders,
England, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, 1465–1467. London: Published
for the Hakluyt Society by Cambridge University Press, 1957.
Mayor, John, ed. The English Works of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, Vol. 27.
London: Early English Text Society, 1876.
Moryson, Fynes. An Itinerary Containing His Ten Yeeres Travell through the
Twelve Dominions of Germany, Bohmerland, Sweitzerland, Netherland,
 Further Reading   255

Denmarke, Poland, Italy, Turky, France, England, Scotland & Ireland, 4 vols.
New York: Macmillan, 1907–1908.
Mueller, Janel, ed. Katherine Parr: Complete Works & Correspondence. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Mueller, Janel and Joshua Scodell, eds. Elizabeth I: Translations, 1544–1589.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Mynors, R.A.B. and D.F.S. Thomson, trans. The Correspondence of Erasmus. 15
vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974–2012.
Nichols, John, ed. A Collection of the Wills Now Known to be Extant of the Kings
and Queens of England, Princes and Princesses of Wales and Every Branch of
the Royal Family from the Reign of William the Conqueror to that of Henry VII
Exclusive. London: J. Nichols, 1780.
______. The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. Among Which
Are Interspersed Other Solemnities, Public Expenditures, and Remarkable
Events During the Reign of That Illustrious Princess. New edition, 3 vols. New
York, B. Franklin, 1965.
Nichols, John Gough, ed. London Pageants. London: J. G. Nichols and son,
183l.
Nicolas, Nicholas Harris, ed., The Privy Purse Expenditures of Elizabeth of York:
Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth. New York: A Facsimile edition pub-
lished by Barnes & Noble, 1972.
______. Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry the Eighth from November MDXXIX
to December MDXXXII. London: William Pickering, 1827.
Park, Thomas, ed. Nugae Antiquae, 2 vols. New York: AMS Press Reprint, 1966.
Pocock, Nicholas, ed. Records of the Reformation, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1870.
Pronay, Nicholas and John Cox, eds. Crowland Chronicle Continuation, 1459–
1486. London: Sutton for the Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1986.
Prynne, William. Aurum Reginae. London: Thomas Ratcliffe, 1668.
Robinson, John. Observations Divine and Morall for the Furtherance of
Knowledge and Virtue, second edition. Amsterdam: Gileo Thoorp, 1625.
Rhys, Ernest, ed. The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI. London: E. P.
Dutton & Co., 1920.
Scottish Record Office. Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating
to the Negotiations between England and Spain Preserved in the Archives at
Simancas and Elsewhere. Edited by G. A. Bergenroth, P. De Gayangos, G.
Mattingly, M.A.S. Hume, and R. Taylor, 13 vols, 2 supplements. London:
Longman, 1862–1954.
______. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Existing in the Archives and
Collections of Milan. Published by the Authority of the Lords Commissioners
of His Majesty's Treasury. London: HMSO, 1921.
______. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs,
Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in Other libraries of
256  Further Reading

Northern Italy. Edited by. R. Brown G. Cavendish-Bentinck, and H.F.

Brown, 38 volumes. London: HMSO, 1864–1947.
_____. Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office. Henry
VII, 1485–[1509], 2 vols. Prepared under the superintendence of Deputy
Keeper of the Public Records. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970.
_____.Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII.
Edited by J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R. H. Brodie, 21 vols. in 35 and
Addenda. London: HMSO, 1862–1932.
Society of Antiquaries. A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the
Government of the Royal Household, Made in Divers Reigns from King Edward
III to King William and Queen Mary. London: For the Society of Antiquaries
by John Nichols, 1790.
Starkey, David, ed. The Inventory of King Henry VIII: Society of Antiquaries MS
129 and British Library MS Harley 1419, 2 vols. London: Harvey Miller for
the Society of Antiquaries of London, 1998.
Stevenson, Joseph, ed. Calendar of State Papers, Foreign series, of the Reign
of Elizabeth, 1558–1559: Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her
Majesty's Public Record Office, 22 vols. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint,
1966–1969.
Thomas, A.H. and I.D. Thornley, eds. Great Chronicle of London. London:
George Jones, 1938.
Turpyn, Richard. The Chronicle of Calais, in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry
VIII to the Year 1540. Edited by John Gough Nichols, Camden Society Series,
vol. 35. London: For the Camden Society by J. B. Nichols and Son, 1846.
Victoria and Albert Museum. Princely Magnificence: Court Jewels of the
Renaissance, 1500–1630, 15th October 1980–1st February 1981. London:
Debrett’s Peerage, Ltd. In association wit the Victoria and Albert Museum,
c. 1980.
Vos, Alvin, ed. Letters of Roger Ascham. Translated by Maurice Hatch and Alvin
Vos. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.
Weldon, Sir Anthony. A Catt May Look at a King; A Brief Chronicle and
Character of the Kings of England from William the Conqueror to the Reign of
Charles I. Liverpool: J. Davies, 1816.
Wriothesley, Charles. A Chronicle of England during the Reigns of the Tudors,
from A.D. 1485 to 1559. Edited by William Hamilton, Camden Society, n.s.
vols. XI and XX. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1965.

Books
Adams, Robyn and Rosanna Cox, eds. Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
 Further Reading   257

Anderson, M.S. The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450–1919. London: Longman,

1993.
Anglo, Sydney, ed. Chivalry in the Renaissance. Woodbridge: Boydell Press,
1990.
______. Spectacle, Pageantry, and Early Tudor Policy. second edition. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997.
Archer, John. Sovereignty and Intelligence: Spying and Court Culture in the
English Renaissance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993.
Armstrong, Nancy and Leonard Tennenhouse, eds. The Ideology of Conduct:
Essays on the Literature and History of Sexuality. New York: Methuen, 1989.
Ashmole, Elias. The History of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. London: For A.
Bell, W. Taylor, J. Baker, and A. Collins, 1715.
Atherton, Ian and Julie Sanders, eds. The 1630s: Interdisciplinary Essays on
Culture in the Caroline Era. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.
Baldwin, David. Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower. Thrupp:
Sutton Publishing, 2002.
Banks, T.C. An Historical Account of the Ancient and Modern Forms, Pageantry,
and Coronation Ceremony of the Kings of England. London: for the Author,
1820.
Barron, Caroline and Christopher Harper-Bill, eds. The Church in Pre-
Reformation Society: Essays in Honour of F.R.H. Du Boulay. Woodbridge:
Boydell Press, 1985.
Beier, A.L., David Cannadine, and James Rosenheim, eds. The First Modern
Society: Essays on English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Bell, Doyle. Notices of the Historic Persons Buried in the Chapel of St. Peter ad
Vincula. London: J. Murray, 1877.
Ben-Amos, Ilana. The Culture of Giving: Informal Support and Gift-Exchange in
Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Bernard, G.W. Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2009.
Bertolet, Anna Riehl ed. Queens Matter in Early Modern Studies. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
Betteridge, Thomas and Suzannah Lipscomb, eds. Henry VIII and the Court:
Art, Politics, and Performance. Farnham, Ashgate, 2013.
Betteridge, Thomas and Anna Riehl, eds. Tudor Court Culture. Selinsgrove:
Susequehanna University Press, 2010.
Biggs, Douglas, Sharon Michalove, and A. Compton Reeves, ed. Traditions and
Transformations in Late Medieval England. Leiden, Brill, 2002.
Blair, Claude. The Crown Jewels: The History of the Coronation Regalia in the
Jewel House of the Tower of London, 2 vols. London: HMSO, 1998.
258  Further Reading

Blomefield, Francis. An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of

Norfolk, second edition, 11 vols. London: W. Miller, 1827.
Blood, Olivia. The Royal Way of Death. London: Constable, 1986.
Bonfield, Lloyd. Marriage Settlements, 1601–1740: The Adoption of the Strict
Settlement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Boxer, Marily and Jean Quataert, eds. Connecting Spheres: Women in the Western
World, 1500 to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Broomhall, Susan and Stephanie Tarbin, eds. Identities, Women, and
Communities in Early Modern Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
Brown, Michael and Roland Tanner, eds. Scottish Kingship, 1306–1542: Essays in
Honour of Norman MacDougall. Edinburgh: John Donald, 2008.
Brown Michelle and Scot McKendrick, eds. Illuminating the Book: Makers and
Interpreters: Essays in Honour of Janet Bakehouse. London and Toronto: The
British Library and University of Toronto, 1998.
Campbell, Erin, ed. Growing Old in Early Modern Europe: Cultural
Representations. Burlington: Ashgate, 2006.
Carley, James. The Books of King Henry VIII and His Wives. London: British
Library, 2004.
Carlton, Charles with Robert Woods, Mary Robertson, and Joseph Block, eds.
State, Sovereigns & Society in Early Modern England: Essays in Honour of A. J.
Slavin. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1998.
Carpenter, Edward, ed. A House of Kings: The Official History of Westminster
Abbey. New York: John Day Company, 1966.
Carpenter, Jennifer and Sally-Beth MacLean, eds. Power of the Weak: Studies on
Medieval Women. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1995.
Coleman, D.C. and A.H. John eds. Trade, Government and Economy in Pre-
Industrial England: Essays Presented to F. J. Fisher. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1976.
Cosman, Madeleine. Medieval Holidays and Festivals: A Calendar of Celebrations.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1981.
Cox, J. Charles. The Parish Registers of England. Totowa: Rowman and
Littlefield Reprint, 1974.
Cunningham, Sean. Henry VII. London: Routledge, 2007.
Cunnington, Phillis and Catherine Lucas. Costumes for Births, Marriages, and
Deaths. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1972.
Daniell, Christopher. Death and Burial in Medieval England, 1066–1550.
London: Routledge, 1997.
Dietz, Frederick. English Public Finance: 1485–1558, 2 vols. London: Barnes and
Noble, 1964.
Dillon, Janette, Performance and Spectacle in Hall’s Chronicle. London: Society
for Theatre Research, 2002.
Dolan, Frances. Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth-Century
Print Culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.
 Further Reading   259

Doran, Susan and Thomas Freeman, eds. Mary Tudor: Old and New Perspectives.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Duffy, Eamon. Marking the Hours: English People and their Prayers, 1240–1570.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.
Duggan, Anne, ed. Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe: Proceedings of a
Conference Held at King’s College, London, April 1995. Woodbridge: Boydell
Press, 1997.
Earenfight, Theresa, ed. Queenship and Political Power in Medieval and Early
Modern Spain. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Eccles, Audrey. Obstetrics and Gynecology in Tudor and Stuart England. Kent,
OH: Kent State University, 1982.
Edwards, John. Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2011.
Eliade, Mircea. Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of Birth and
Rebirth. Translated by W.Trask. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
Evenden, Elizabeth and Vivienne Westbrook, eds. Catholic Renewal and
Protestant Resistance in Marian England. Burlington: Ashgate, 2016.
Ferrante, Jean. Women as Image in Medieval Literature From the Twelfth Century
to Dante. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.
Fletcher, Catherine. The Divorce of Henry VIII: The Untold Story from Inside the
Vatican. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Fradenburg, Louise. City, Tournament, Arts of Rule in Late Medieval Scotland.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
Giesey, Ralph. The Royal Funeral Ceremony in Renaissance France. Genéve: E.
Droz, 1960.
Gittings, Clare. Death, Burial, and the Individual in Early Modern England.
London: Croom Helm, 1984.
Glanville, Philippa. Silver in Tudor and Early Stuart England: A Social History
and Catalogue of the National Collection, 1480–1600. London: Victoria and
Albert Museum, 1990.
Griffiths, Ralph, ed. Patronage: The Crown and the Provinces in Later Medieval
England. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1981.
Guth, Delloyd and John McKenna, eds. Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for
G.R. Elton from His American Friends. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982.
Hampton, Timothy. Fictions of Embassy: Literature and Diplomacy in Early
Modern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.
Harris, Barbara. English Aristocratic Women, 1450–1550: Marriage annd Family
and Careers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Harvey, Anthony and Richard Mortimer, eds. The Funeral Effigies of Westminster
Abbey. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1994.
260  Further Reading

Hayward, Maria. Rich Apparel: Clothing and the Law in Henry VIII’s England.
Burlington: Ashgate, 2009.
Heal, Felicity. The Power of Gifts: Gift Exchange in Early Modern England.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Holman, Peter. Four and Twenty Fiddlers: The Violin at the English Court, 1540–
1690. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Holmes, Grace. The Order of the Garter: Its Knights and Stall Plates. Windsor:
Oxley, 1984.
Houlbrooke, Ralph. Death, Religion and the Family in England, 1480–1750.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Hull, Suzanne. Chaste. Silent & Obedient: English Books for Women, 1475–1640.
San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1982.
Hume, Martin. The Wives of Henry the Eighth and the Parts They Played in
History. New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1905.
Huneycutt, Lois. Matilda of Scotland: A Study in Medieval Queenship.
Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.
Hunt, Alice. The Drama of Coronation: Medieval Ceremony in Early Modern
England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Hunt, Alice and Anna Whitelock, eds. Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and
Elizabeth. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Ives, E.W. Faction in Tudor England. London: Historical Association, 1979.
_______. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: ‘The Most Happy’. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2004.
James, Susan. Katheryn Parr: The Making of a Queen. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.
Johnston, Alexandra and Wim Húsken, eds. Civic Ritual and Drama.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997.
Jones, Michael and Malcolm Underwood. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret
Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992.
Kipling, Gordon. Enter the King: Theatre, Liturgy, and Ritual in the Medieval
Civic Triumph. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
______. The Triumph of Honour: Burgundian Origins of the Elizabethan
Renaissance. Leiden: For the Sir Thomas Browne Institute by Leiden
University Press, 1977.
Labarge, Margaret. Women in Medieval Life: A Small Sound of the Trumpet.
London: Hamilton, 1986.
Lander, J.R. Crown and Nobility, 1450–1509. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 1970.
Laynesmith, Joanna. The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445–1503.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Lehmberg, Stanford. The Later Parliaments of Henry VIII, 1536–1547.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
 Further Reading   261

Levin, Carole and Robert Bucholz, eds. Queens & Power in Medieval and Early
Modern England. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009.
Levin, Carole, Jo Eldridge Carney, and Debra Barrett-Graves, eds. High and
Mighty Queens’ of Early Modern England: Realities and Representations. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Lewis, Judith. In the Family Way: Childbearing in the British Aristocracy, 1760–
1860. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1986.
Lingard, John. The History of England, 10 vols. Dublin: Duffy,1878.
Loades, David: Mary Tudor: A Life. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989.
______. The Tudor Court. London: Batsford, 1986.
MacCubbin, Robert, ed. ‘Tis Nature’s Fault: Unauthorized Sexuality During the
Englightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ed. The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety.
Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995.
_______.Thomas Cranmer. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
McLaren, Angus. Reproductive Rituals: The Perception of Fertility in England
From the Sixteenth century to the Nineteenth Century. London: Methuen,
1984.
McManus, Clare, ed. Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Mateer, David, ed. Courts, Patrons, and Poets. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2000.
Mattingly, Garrett. Catherine of Aragon. Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1941.
Medcalf, Stephen, ed. The Later Middle Ages. London: Methuen, 1981.
Merriman, Marcus. The “Rough Wooings:” Mary Queen of Scots, 1542–1551. East
Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000.
Merritt, J.F. The Social World of Early Modern Westminster: Abbey, Court and
Community. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.
Mertes, Kate. The English Noble Household 1250–1600: Good Governance and
Politic Rule. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
Miller, Helen. Henry VIII and the English Nobility. New York: Blackwell, 1986.
Monad, Paul. The Power of Kings: Monarchy and Religion in Europe, 1589–1715.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.
Muir, Edward and Guido Ruggerio, eds. Sex and Gender in Historical
Perspective. Translated by . Margaret Gallucci. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1990.
Murray, Jacqueline and Konrad Eisenbichler, eds. Desire and Sexuality in the
Premodern West. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.
Myers, A.R. Crown, Household and Parliament in Fifteenth Century England.
Edited by Cecil Clough. London: Hambledon Press, 1985.
Newell, E.J. Llandaff. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1902.
262  Further Reading

Newman, Karen. Cultural Capitals: Early Modern London and Paris. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2007.
Oakley-Brown, Liz and Louise Wilkinson, eds. The Rituals and Rhetoric of
Queenship: Medieval to Early Modern. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009.
Ohler, Norbert. The Medieval Traveller. Translated by Caroline Hillier.
Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989.
Okerlund, Arlene. Elizabeth of York. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
_____. Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen. Stroud: Tempus, 2005.
Ormrod, W. Mark. Edward III. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.
Parker, Geoffrey. Philip II. Boston: Little Brown, 1978.
Parsons, John and Bonnie Wheeler, eds. Medieval Mothering. New York: Garland
Publishing, 1996.
Pattison, Bruce. Music and Poetry of the English Renaissance, second edition.
London: Methuen & C., 1970.
Payer, Pierre. Sex and the Penitentials: The Development of a Sexual Code, 550–
1150. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984.
Peck, Linda Levy, ed. The Mental World of the Jacobean Court. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Phillips, Kim and and Barry Reay. Sex Before Sexuality: A Premodern History.
Cambridge: Polity, 2011.
Porter, Roy and Mikuláš Teich. Sexual Knowledge, Sexual Science: The History of
Attitudes to Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Potter, David. A History of France, 1460–1560. London: Macmillan, 1995.
Powell, Chilton. English Domestic Relations, 1487–1653. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1917.
Queller, Donald. The Office of Ambassador in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1967.
Richardson, Glenn, ed. “The Contending Kingdoms” France and England: 1420–
1700. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
______.The Field of Cloth of Gold. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013.
Richardson, W.C Stephen Vaughan: Financial Agent of Henry VIII: A Study of
Financial Relations with the Low Countries. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University, 1953.
_____.Tudor Chamber Administration, 1485–1547. Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University Press, 1952.
Rose, Tessa. The Coronation Ceremony of the Kings and Queens of England and
the Crown Jewels. London: HMSO, 1992.
Rosenthal, Joel. Patriarchy and Families of Privilege in Fifthteenth-Century
England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991.
Rosenthal, Joel and Colin Richmond, eds. People, Politics and Community in the
Later Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987.
 Further Reading   263

Rowe, J.G. And W.H. Stockdale, eds. Florilegium Historiale: Essays Presented to
Wallace K. Ferguson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.
Russell, Jocelyne. Peacemaking in the Renaissance. London: Duckworth, 1986.
Ryan, Lawrence. Roger Ascham. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962.
Ryrie, Alec. The Gospel and Henry VIII: Evangelicals in the Early English
Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Saul, Nigel, and Tom Tatton-Brown, eds. St. George’s Chapel, Windsor: History
and Heritage. Stanbridge: Dovecote, 2010.
Scarisbrick, Diana. Tudor and Jacobean Jewelry. London: Tate, 1995.
Scarisbrick, J.J. Henry VIII. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
Scattergood, V.J. and J.W. Sherhorne, eds. English Court Culture in the Later
Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.
Schramm, Percy. A History of the English Coronation. Translated by L G.
Wickkham Legg. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937.
Schutte, Valerie. Mary I and the Art of Book Dedications: Royal Women, Power,
and Persuasion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
______. Unexpected Heirs and Heiresses in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings
and Queens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
Seton Watson, R.W. ed. Tudor Studies, Presented by the Board of Studies in History
in the University of London to Albert Frederick Pollard. Freeport: Bookes for
Libraries Press Reprint, 1969.
Seymour, William. Ordeal by Ambition: An English Family in the Shadow of the
Tudors. London: Sedgwick & Jackson, 1972.
Sharpe, Reginald Robinson. London and the Kingdom: A Study Derived Mainly
from the Archives at Guildhall, 3 vols. London: Longmans, Green & co.,
1894.
Simone, Franco. The French Renaissance: Medieval Tradition and Italian
Influence in Shaping the Renaissance in France. Translated by H. Hall.
London: Macmillan, 1969.
Somerville, Robert. The History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 2 vols. London:
Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1953.
Stafford, Pauline, ed. A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and
England c. 500-c. 1000. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Starkey, David, ed. The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War.
London: Longman, 1987.
______. Henry VIII: A European Court in England. London: Collins & Brown,
1991.
______. The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics. London: George
Philip, 1985.
______. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.
Streitberger, W.R. Court Revels, 1485–1559. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1994.
264  Further Reading

Sttrickland, Agnes. Lives of the Queens of England, from the Norman Conquest, 12
vols. London: H. Colburn, 1840–1848.
Strohm, Paul. Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth Century
Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Strong, Roy. Coronations: A History of Kingship and the British Monarchy. New
York: HarperCollins, 2005.
Tatton-Brown, Tim and Richard Mortimer, eds. Westminster Abbey: The Lady
Chapel of Henry VII. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.
Thompson, Benjamin, ed. The Reign of Henry VII, Proceedings of the 1993
Harlaxton Symposium. Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1995.
Thornton, Tim, ed. Social Attitudes and Political Structures in the Fifteenth
Century. Thrupp: Sutton, 2000.
Thurley, Simon. The Royal Palaces of Tudor England: Architecture and Court
Life 1460–1547. New Haven, CT: For the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in
British Art by Yale University Press, 1993.
Tittler Robert and Norman Jones, eds. A Companion to Tudor Britain. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
Tout, T.F. Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England: The
Wardrobe, the Chamber, and The Small Seals, 6 vols. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1920–1933.
Tremlett, Giles. Catherine of Aragon, Henry’s Spanish Queen: A Biography.
London: Faber and Faber, 2010.
Utz, Richard and Tom Shippey, eds. Medievalism in the Modern World: Essays in
Honor of Leslie J. Workman. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998.
Vigarello, Georges. Concepts of Cleanliness: Changing Attitudes in France since
the Middle Ages. Translated by Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
Vincent, Susan. Dressing the Elite: Clothes in Early Modern England. New York:
Berg, 2003.
Warnicke, Retha M. The Marrying of Anne of Cleves: Royal Protocol in Tudor
England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
_____. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry
VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
_____. Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, and Commoners.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
______. William Lambarde: Elizabethan Antiquary. London: Philimore, 1973.
Weir, Antonia. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson,
1992.
Whiting, Robert. The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the
English Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Wilkie, William. The Cardinal Protectors of England: Rome and the Tudors before
the Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
 Further Reading   265

Williams, Daniel, ed., England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1986
Harlaxton Society. Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 1987.
Williams, E. Carlton. My Lord of Bedford: Being a Life of John of Lancaster, Duke
of Bedford, Brother of Henry V and Regent of France. London: Longman,
1963.
Wood, E.J. Giants and Dwarfs. London: Richard Bentley, 1868.
Wooding, Lucy. Henry VIII. London: Routledge, 2009.
Woodruff, Douglas, ed. For Hilaire Belloc: Essays in Honour of his 72ndBirthday.
London: Sheed & Ward, 1942.
Woolgar, C.M. The Great Household in Late Medieval England. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1999.

Articles
Anglo, Sydney. “The British History in Early Tudor Propaganda.” Bulletin of the
John Rylands Library of Manchester. 44(1961–1962), 17–48
______.“The Court Festivals of Henry VII, a Study Based upon the Account
Books of John Heron, Treasurer of the Chamber.” Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library, Manchester. 43(1960), 12–45.
______. “The Evolution of the Early Tudor Disguising: Pageant and Mask.”
Renaissance Drama. new series, 1(1968), 3–44.
______. “The Foundation of the Tudor Dynasty: The Coronation and Marriage
of Henry VII.” Guildhall Miscellany. 2(1960), 3–11.
______. “The Imperial Alliance and the Entry of the Emperor Charles V into
London, June, 1522.” Guildhall Miscellany. 2(1962), 131–154.
Archer, Ian. “City and Court Connections: The Material Dimensions of Royal
Ceremonial, ca, 1480–1625.” Huntington Library Quarterly. 71(2008), 157–
179.
Armstrong, C.A.J. “The Inauguration Ceremonies of the Yorkist Kings and
Their Title to the Throne.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. fourth
series, 30(1948): 51–73.
Bernard, G.W. “The Fall of Anne Boleyn.” English Historical Review. 106
(1991), 584–610.
______. “The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Rejoinder.” English Historical Review.
106(1992), 661–664
______. “The Rise of Sir William Compton, Early Tudor Courtier.” English
Historical Review. 96(1981), 754–757.
Bush, Michael, “The Tudors and the Royal Race.” History. 55(1970), 37–48.
Charlton, William. “Maundy Thursday Observances and the Royal Maundy
Money.” Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society. 34(1916), 201–220.
Crane, David. “English Translations of the Imitatio in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries.” Recusant History. 13(1975–1976), 79–100.
266  Further Reading

Crawford, Anne. “The Queen’s Council in the Middle Ages.” English Historical
Review. 110 (2001), 1193–1211.
Crawford, Patricia. “‘The Suckling Child,’ Adult Attitudes to Child Care in the
First Year of Life in Seventeenth Century England.” Continuity and Change.
1(1986), 23–51.
Davis, Norman Davis. “Two Early Sixteenth-Century Accounts of Royal
Occasions.” Notes & Queries. 218 (1973), 122–131.
Dobie, B.M. Wilmot. “An Attempt to Estimate the True Rate of Maternal
Mortality, Sixteemth `to Eighteenth Centuries.” Medical History. 26(l982),
79–90.
Freeman, Thomas. “Research, Rumour, and Propaganda. Anne Boleyn in Foxe’s
Book of Martyrs.” Historical Journal. 38(1995), 797–819.
Fisher, N.R.R. “The Queen’s Courte in her Councill Chamber at Westminster.”
English Historical Review. 108(1993), 314–339.
Gathagan Laura. “The Trappings of Power: The Coronation of Mathilda of
Flanders.” Haskins Society Journal. 13(2000 for 1999), 21–39.
Gillespie, James. “Ladies of the Fraternity of Saint George and of the Society of
the Garter.” Albion. 17(1985), 259–278.
Given-Wilson, Christopher. “The Merger of Edward III’s and Queen Philippa’s
Household, 1360–1369.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research.
51(1978), 183–187.
Griffiths, Ralph. “Queen Katherine of Valois and a Missing Statute of the
Realm.” The Law Quarterly Review. 93(1977), 248–258.
Harris, Barbara. “Property, Power and Personal Relations: Elite Mothers and
Sons in Yorkists and Early Tudor England.” Signs. 15(1990), 606–632.
Hartshorne, C.H. “The Obsequies of Katherine of Aragon.” Archaeological
Journal. 11(1854), 353–367.
Hass, Louis. “Social Connections between Parents and Godparents in Late
Medieval Yorkshire.” Medieval Prosography. 10(spring, 1989), 1–21.
Hollingsworth, Thomas. “Demographic Study of the British Ducal Families.”
Population Studies. 11(1957), 4–26.
Ives, E.W. “Faction at the Court of Henry VIII: The Fall of Anne Boleyn.”
History. 57(1972), 169–188.
Johnstone, Hilda. “Poor Relief in the Royal Households of Thirteenth-Century
England.” Speculum: A Journal of Mediaeval Studies. 4 (1929), 149–167.
Jones, Michael. “Edward IV and the Beaufort Family: Conciliation in Early
Yorkist Politics.” The Ricardian: Journal of the Richard III Society. VI (1983),
258–265.
Kisby, Fiona. “Kingship and the Royal Intinerary: A Study of the Peripatetic
Household of the Early Tudor Kings, 1485–1547.” The Court Historian. 4
(1998), 29–39.
 Further Reading   267

_____. “When the King Goeth a Procession:” Chapel Ceremonies and Services,
the Ritual Year, and Religious Reforms at the Early Tudor Court, 1485–1547.
Journal of British Studies. 40(2001), 44–75.
Kramer, Kyra and Catrina Whitley. “A New Explanation for the Reproductive
Woes and Midlife Decline of Henry VIII.” Historical Journal. 53(2010),
827–848.
Lancashire, Ian. “Orders for Twelfth Day and Night circa 1515 in the Second
Northumberland Household Book.” English Literary Renaissance. 10(1980),
7–40.
Laynesmith, Joanna. “The King’s Mother.” History Today. 56–63(2006), 38–44.
Loach, Jennifer. “The Function of Ceremonial in the Reign of Henry VIII.” Past
and Present. 142(1994), 43–68.
Moorhen, Wendy. “Four Weddings and a Conspiracy: The Life, Times and Loves
of Lady Katherine Gordon.” Part I and Part II. The Ricardian: Journal of the
Richard III Society. XII (2002), 394–424 and 446–477.
Myers, A.R. “The Household of Queen Margaret of Anjou.” Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library. 40(1957–1958), 79–113, 391–431.
Nash, Treadway. “Observations on the Time and Place of Burial of Queen
Katherine Parr.” Archaeologia, IX(1789), 1–9.
Pascual, Lucia Diaz. “Jaquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of Bedford and Lady
Rivers (c.1416–1472).” The Ricardian: The Journal of the Richard III Society.
XXI(2011), 67–91.
St. John Hope, W.H. “On the Funeral Effigies of the Kings and Queens of
England; With a “Note on the Westminster Identifications” by Joseph
Armitage Robinson.” Archaeologia. 60 (1907), 517–570
Sherb, Victor. “I’de have a shooting: Catherine of Aragon’s Receptions of Robin
Hood.” Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama. 42(2003), 123–146.
Smoller, Laura.“Playing Cards and Popular Culture in Sixteenth-Century
Nurenberg.” Sixteenth Century Journal. XVII (1986), 183–214.
Sutton, Anne and Livia Visser-Fuchs. “A Most Benevolent Queen: Queen
Elizabeth Woodville’s Reputation, Her Piety and Her Books.” The Ricardian,
The Journal of the Richard III Society. X (1995), 214–245.
Tankard, Diana.“The Johnson Family and the Reformation.” Historical Research.
80(2007), 469–490.
Thirsk, Joan. “The Fashioning of the Tudor-Stuart Gentry.” Bulletin of the John
Rylands University Library, Manchester. 72 (1990), 69–85.
Troup, Frances Rose. “Two Book Bills of Katherine Parr.” The Library, third
series. 2(1911), 40–48.
Withington, Robert. “The Early Royal Entry.” Publication of the Modern
Language Association. 32(1917), 616–623.
268  Further Reading

Electronic Sources
“Anne of Cleves Tomb.” htttp://www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/our-his-
tory/royals/burials/anne-of-cleves.
“Hampton Court Palace.” www.hrp.org.uk/HamptonCourtPalace/
HamptonCourtsorigin.
Haveus Theodore. ”Oxford Index: A Search and Discovery Gateway.” http://
oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095924771.
Howard, Leonard, ed. A Collection of Letters from the Original Manuscripts of
Many Princes, Personages, and Statesmen. London, 1753. Eighteenth Century
Collections Online. http://www.galenet.galegroup.
“Images for Tomb of Catherine Parr.” https://www.google.com/search?q=tom
b+of+catherine+parr.
Le Neve, John. Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1541–1857. Exeter Diocese. Vol. 9.
Edited by Joyce Horn, London, 1964, British History Online. http://www.
british-history.ac.uk/fasti-ecclesiae/1300-1541.
Madden, Frederick, ed. “Narrative of the Visit of the Duke de Najera to
England in the Year 1543–1544, Written by his secretary, Pedro de Gante.”
Archaelogia. XXIII, 1831, 3–15, https://books.google.com/books/about/
Narrative_of_the_Visit_of_the_Duke_de_Najera.html?id=R7hPAAAAcAAJ.
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.www.dnboxforddictionary.com.
“Peterborough Cathedral’s Spanish Queen.” http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
england-cambridgeshire-17337318.
Ridgway, Claire. “Anne Boleyn's Execution Site- The Anne Boleyn Files.”
http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/anne-boleyns-execution-site.
“Sudeley Castle, the Curious Life and Death of Katherine Parr.” http://tudor-
history.org/places/sudeley.
Warnicke, Retha M. “Queenship: Politics and Gender in Tudor England.”
History Compass, 4(2006), 203–227. www.history-compass.com.

Unpublished Dissertations
Dakota Hamilton, Dakota. “The Household of Queen Katherine Parr.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Somerville College, Oxford University, 1992,
Lundell, Richard Edward. “The Mask of Dissimulation: Eustace Chapuys and
Early Modern Diplomatic Technique, 1536–1545.” Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana, 2001.
Schmid, Susan Walters. “Anne Boleyn, Lancelot de Carle and the Uses of
Documentary Evidence.” Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 2009.
Urkevich, Lisa Anne. “Anne Boleyn, a Music Book, and the Northern
Renaissance Courts: Music Manuscript 1070 of the Royal College of Music,
London.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1997.
 Index

A Katherine of Aragon as, 4, 147, 245

Act in Restraint of Appeals, 26, 44, 46
Adrian VI, pope, 143
aging, concept of, 203–204
Alcock, John, bishop of Worcester,
112
Aldrich, Robert, bishop of Carlisle,
169n59, 213
Alesius, Alexander, 219–20
Alexander VI, pope, 22
almsgiving, 13, 98–100, 102, 103,
204, 211, 213, 227
ambassador(s), 1, 46, 85, 107, 123,
139, 190, 217. . See also diplo-
macy
ad hoc, 133, 135, 136, 138, 146
Cleves, 35, 142
English, 33, 34, 65–66, 138, 142,
144, 146–47, 151, 156
French, 25, 44, 47, 107, 111, 139,
144, 146–47, 150, 153, 179,
221
Imperial, 27, 100, 141, 178, 196,
213, 248. . See also Chapuys,
Eustace
Italian, 135, 145, 187–88, 195
Milanese, 108
resident, 33, 133–34, 138, 145, 245
Spanish, 91n64, 106, 114, 134–38,
143, 147, 182
Venetian, 44, 47, 145
wives as, 4
André, Bernard, 21, 51n21, 117
Anglo, Sydney, 51n19, 56n87,
93n79, 128n32, 181,
185, 188, 197n7n8,
198n19n20n28n36n38,
200n47
Anna of Denmark, queen of England,
10, 11, 12
Anne, queen of England, 20
Anne Boleyn, queen of England, 2, 4,
7, 12, 28, 29, 30, 31, 84
accusations of adultery, 4, 218
age of, 24
almsgiving and maundy, 99, 100,
103, 220
attendants, female, 27, 47, 72, 73,
74
attendants, male, 63
and birth of Elizabeth, 110

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 269

R.M. Warnicke, Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-Law,
Queenship and Power, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56381-7
270  Index
books, 100–101
burial, 220–21
Calais, visit to, 25
and concern for daughter Elizabeth,
7, 115, 118, 119
coronation and festivities, 6, 36,
43–46, 48, 242
council and members, 66, 67–68
court and household, 64
courtship by Henry VIII, 23–24,
25, 82, 84
and duchess of Alençon, 157
education, 8, 157
entry and procession through
London, 44–45
evidence about her destroyed, 141
execution and burial, 220
fools, 79
foreign diplomats’ view of, 139–42,
245
and French humanists, 157
and gifts, 189–90
and Howard, Lord Edmund, 121
household of, 63, 81
imprisonment, 218
jointure and finances, 63, 69
last confession to Archbishop
Cranmer, 158–59
and Latimer, 75
lineage, 5, 24
as maiden of honor to Katherine of
Aragon, 24
and marchioness title, 25, 70, 121
marriage to Henry VIII, 2, 243
memorial plaque, 221
and music, 80
pregnancy and miscarriage, 6, 26,
27, 110, 113, 139–40
properties of, 65, 70, 83
and Parker, Matthew, 118, 141
patronage by, 11, 154, 157–60, 246
and Percy, Lord Henry, 24, 157
and religion, 11, 99, 154, 246
and Skip, John at the Tower, 220
support of relatives, 121
trial and defense, 218–19
Anne of Cleves, queen of England, 2,
3, 4, 6, 12, 107, 225
almsgiving and maundy, 100, 103
Anglo-Cleves treaty, 34, 70
arrival in England, 31, 35, 36, 35,
241–42
attendants, female, 30, 72–74, 76
attendants, German, 74
attendants, male, 63–65, 80
books of devotion, 100–101
burial preparations, 230
death at Chelsea Manor, 204, 229
described as good-looking, 142
despoiling of the hearse, 230
diplomatic courtship by Henry VIII,
24, 34
divorce from Henry VIII, 4, 31,
228, 230
education, 8
and Elizabeth I, 119
financial problems, 228–29
and “Flanders Mare”, 142
funeral, vigil, and procession,
229–31
gifts, 81
and Henry’s impotence, 134
Holbein’s portrait of, 34, 142
household, 30, 62, 64, 74
jewels, 85
jointure, 69, 70
king’s incognito visit, 35
legacies in will, 229
letters to Mary I, 229
loss of property, 229
marriage contract with Lorraine,
142
at Mary’s coronation, 229
New Year’s court visit, 190–91

political support for Henry VIII,
121
privy purse expenses, 62, 80–81
property as king’s sister, 228
queenship of, 12
river entry to Westminster, 177–79
wedding and festivities, 39, 34–36,
191
Westminster Abbey tomb, 231, 233
wish to return to Cleves, 229
Arthur, King, 109–10, 185
“Articles Ordained by King Henry
VII for the Regulation of His
Household” (“Articles”), 35,
54n66, 101, 125n10, 173, 174,
189, 190, 191
on christenings, 110–11, 113
Arundell, Sir Thomas, 31, 64, 87n18
Ascham, Roger, 120, 161, 164,
172n77n85
Ashley, Katherine, 226
Askew, Anne, 162, 163
Athequa, Jorge de, bishop of Llandaff,
155–56, 214–17
Audley, Edmund, bishop of Salisbury,
210
Audley, Thomas, Lord, 223
Ayala, Don Pedro de, 106, 136, 138
B 230, 231
Bacon, Sir Francis, 23
Baer, Karl Ernst von, 104
Baker, John, 67
barge, queen’s, 38, 61, 77–78, 177,
178
Basset, Anne, 27, 73, 75
Basset, Katherine, 27, 52n43
battles. See specific battle names
Baynard’s Castle, 64, 65, 77, 78, 83,
175, 176, 177
Baynton, Sir Edward, 47–48, 63, 73
Index   271
Baynton, Isabel Leigh, 122
Beard, Richard, 34
Beaufort, Edmund, duke of Somerset,
18
Beaufort lineage, 20–21, 24
Becket, St. Thomas, 40
Bedingfield, Sir Edmund, 214
Belmain, Jean, 120
Bentley, Samuel, 23
Berkeley, Anne, countess of Berkeley
(neé Savage), 26
Bernard, G. W., 91n68, 139
Berthelet, Thomas, 160
Blackheath Common, 35
Bladder, Robert, archbishop of
Glasgow, 144
Blount, Agnes Vanegas, Lady
Mountjoy, 74
Blount, Richard, 183
Blount, William, Lord Mountjoy, 63,
65, 74, 80, 116, 155, 156
Boleyn, Anne, 218
Boleyn, Elizabeth, countess of
Wiltshire and Ormond, 24, 25,
72, 190
Boleyn, Margaret, 24
Boleyn, Thomas, earl of Wiltshire and
Ormond, 44, 121
Boleyn, Sir William, 24
Bonner, Edmund, bishop of London,
books, 155, 170n61
by Katherine Parr, 160
chivalrous romance, 116, 182
classical, 117, 154
conduct, 222
religious, 100–101, 104, 158, 160,
246
Booth, Charles, bishop of Hereford,
155, 156
Bosworth Field, Battle of, 2, 19, 21,
84, 97, 109
272  Index
Boulogne, capture of, 73, 148, 151,
163
Bourbon, Katherine of, 19
Bourchier, Anthony, 65
Bourchier, Henry, earl of Essex, 208
Bourchier, Mary, countess of Essex,
210
Bourchier, Thomas, cardinal arch-
bishop of Canterbury, 21, 106
Brandon, Charles, duke of Suffolk, 45,
155, 183, 189, 215
Brandon, Katherine, duchess of
Suffolk (neé Willoughby), 153,
191, 215, 231
Bray, Sir Reginald, 6, 211
Brereton, William, 139
Brook, Roy, 116
Brooke, Lady Elizabeth, 76
Brooke, George, Lord Cobham, 76
Bryan, Sir Francis, 29, 82
Bryan, Lady Margaret, 82, 115
Buckler, Sir Walter, 66
Bulkeley, Christopher, 63
Bull, Henry, 110–11
Bulmer, Joan (neé Ackworth), 221
Burgundy, Charles the Bold, duke of,
19, 176
Burgundy, Margaret, duchess of, 19,
176
Burgundy, Philip the Good, duke of,
19, 49n8, 176
burial preparations and rituals, 206–8,
211, 212, 227, 230, 232, 247. .
See also individual consorts
Burnet, Gilbert, bishop of Salisbury,
142
Butler, James, earl of Ormond, 29
Butler, Thomas, earl of Ormond, 24,
62
C
Cáceres, Francesca de, 134
Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon, 109
Caerleon, Lewis, 17
Calais, 25, 35, 138, 146, 190, 220,
224
officials of, 63, 105, 106, 121, 189
royal visits to, 82, 106, 147–48,
191, 194, 205
Calvin, John, 120
Camden, William, 24
Campeggio, Lorenzo, cardinal, 61
Capello, Carlo, 44
Cardinal College, Oxford University,
155
Carey, Henry, 121
Carey, William, 29, 73, 121
Carew, Sir Nicholas, 30
Carew, Sir Wymond, 63, 65, 71, 80,
103, 122
Carle, Lancelot de, 139
Caroz, Luis, 134, 142–43, 182
Castelnau, Antoine de, bishop of
Tarbes, 139
Castile, Constanza, princess of, 216
Catherine de’ Medici, queen of
France, 8
Catherine of Alexandria, Saint, feast
day of, 38
Catherine of Braganza, queen of
England, 5
Catling, Brian, 7
Cecil, William, Lord Burghley, 118
Chamberlain, Sir Edward, 214
Chambers, John, abbot, then bishop
of Peterborough, 215, 216
Chabot, Philip, sieur de Brion, 146,
147
chapel royal, 26, 30, 60, 101, 110,
159, 180, 183, 188, 191, 208,
209–10, 243, 244
Chapuys, Eustace

and Anne Boleyn’s miscarriage, 28,
140
and Anne Bolyen’s treatment of
Mary, 115, 119
correspondence with Mary, 141
and Cromwell, 135, 139, 141
denounces Anne Boleyn’s religious
beliefs, 157
as diplomat, 134, 135
and gossip and rumors, 27–28, 134–
35, 139, 140, 141, 169n56
on Jane Seymour, 27–29, 169n56
at Jane Seymour’s funeral, 213
and Katherine of Aragon’s funeral,
217, 248
and Llandaff, Bishop of, 156
meetings at court in 1544, 195–196
on treatment of Katherine of
Aragon, 100, 103
visit to Brussels, 135
visit to Katherine of Aragon in
1536, 214
welcoming Henry VIII and Jane
Seymour in 1536, 178
Charles I, king of England, 213
Charles II, king of England, 5
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor
(prince of Castile), 4, 24, 25, 27,
34, 101, 103, 104, 143, 144,
145, 214, 245
Cheke, Sir John, 120
Chelsea Manor, 30, 65, 226, 229–31,
248
childbirth, 7, 11. . See also individual
queens
and the “Articles”, 110–112
and death, 30, 113–114, 123, 164,
204, 207, 209, 210, 244
folklore about, 105, 114, 144, 244
lying-in chamber for, 84, 97, 109,
208, 226, 244
maternal rituals of, 11
Index   273
midwifery, 110, 111, 114, 204
prayers for, 110–111
pregnancy and, 104–106, 108
preparations for, 84
as queen’s duty, 4, 7
and religion, 97–98, 105, 110, 114,
244
royal rituals after, 111–15, 199n34
christenings, 11, 23, 80, 97, 106, 110,
111–13, 129n34, 207, 208, 244
and godparents, 11, 23, 111–12,
244
Christian humanism, 154, 246. . See
also humanism
Christina of Denmark, dowager duch-
ess of Milan, 24, 34
Christmas celebrations, 173, 188–89. .
See also Epiphany, New Year’s gift
giving
churching, 11, 97, 101, 114, 115, 244
Claude, queen of France, 145,
169n36, 192–94, 247
Clayton, Katharine, 216
Clement VII, pope, 5, 24, 25, 219,
242
Clerk, John, bishop of Bath and Wells,
146, 156–57
Cleves, Amelia of, 34
Cleves, Anne of. See Anne of Cleves
Cleves, John, duke of, 34
Cleves, William, duke of, 3, 34, 229
Clifford, Henry, earl of Cumberland,
216
Clifford, Eleanor, countess of
Cumberland (neé Brandon), 216
Coffin, Sir William, 63, 87n16
Compton, Sir William, 71, 75,
91–92n68
Conway, Hugh, 17
Cooke, Sir Anthony, 120
Cornish, William, 180
coronations, significance of, 6, 36–39
274  Index
Cotton, Margaret, 121
Cotton, Sir Roger, 22, 39, 121
court
king’s, 10, 60–65
queen’s, 9–10, 11, 60–69, 70,
71–74, 76, 79
Courtenay, Gertrude, marchioness of
Exeter, 28, 213
Courtenay, Henry, marquess of Exeter,
71, 121
Courtenay, Peter, bishop of Exeter,
112
Courtenay, Sir William, earl of Devon,
120–21, 182, 234n13
Coverdale, Miles, 158, 227
Coxe, Richard, 120
Cranmer, Thomas, archbishop of
Canterbury, 35, 159, 164, 222,
223
and Anne Boleyn, 26, 30, 45,
158–59, 219, 220
and Anne of Cleves, 35
on “council with the queen”,
148–49
dispensation for Henry to wed Jane
Seymour, 30
and Henry VIII’s first marriage, 26,
158
and Henry VIII’s marriage to
Katherine Parr, 32–33
and Jane Seymour’s funeral, 213
and Katherine Howard, 222–23,
225
and Katherine Parr, 163
Crawford, Anne, 68
Cromwell, Oliver, 216
Cromwell, Sir Thomas, earl of Essex,
60, 64, 83, 107, 108, 156, 159,
164, 166n8, 212
on Anne Boleyn’s miscarriage,
140–41
and Chapuys’s gossip, 135, 139,
140, 141
as earl of Essex, 107
and Elizabeth’s weaning, 115
execution of, 148
on Henry VIII’s marital candidates,
34
and the jewel house, 84
and Katherine of Aragon’s maundy,
103
and Mary’s illegitimacy, 119
as principal minister, 25
property of, 71
and Sadler, Ralph, 108
and the Seymours, 28–29
views according to foreign agents,
139–140
Crowland Chronicler, 22
Culpeper, Sir Thomas, 103, 222–25
D
Darcy, Elizabeth, Lady Darcy of
Chiche (baroness), 231
Darcy, Thomas, Lord Darcy of Chiche,
231
Daubeney, Sir Giles, 77–78
Daubeney Katherine, Lady Daubeney
and countess of Bridgewater, 224
Day, George, bishop of Chichester,
160–61, 163
De Ratione Studii Puerilis, 118
Dean, Agnes, 78
death, preparations for, 205–206
Decons (or Decouns), Richard, 62,
69, 102
Dennis, Sir Thomas, 64
Denny, Sir Anthony, 122, 226
Denny, Joan, 226
Depucho, Stacio, 194
Dereham, Francis, 221–25

diplomat(s), 133, 145. . See also
ambassadors; individuals by name
and bribery, 133, 134
and diplomatic practice, 133, 145
dispatches as evidence, 134, 139
reports by, 135
and retaliation by rulers, 135–35
rumors and gossip, 27–28, 134–35,
139, 140, 141, 150, 169n56
and spying, 133, 135
views of royal women, 135–36
Dodieu, Claude, 153
Dormer, Sir William, 29
Douglas, Archibald, earl of Angus, 150
Douglas, Lady Margaret, 75–76, 104,
122, 150, 195
duchy of Lancaster, 67, 70
Dudley, John, duke of
Northumberland (Viscount Lisle),
31, 229
Duwes, Giles, 118
Dymmok, Sir Robert, 63, 87n13
E as successor to the throne, 146–47
education, 154, 161
of boys, 117
of girls, 8, 115, 116, 117, 118, 154
parents’ interest in, 7–8, 115–117
Edward I, king of England, 5, 24, 81,
175
Edward II, king of England, 18
Edward III, king of England, 18, 24,
102, 110, 185
Edward IV, king of England, 2, 6,
18–19, 21, 99, 117, 176, 185,
211, 214
Edward V, king of England (boy in the
Tower), 2, 17
Edward VI, king of England, 5, 32,
112, 120, 122, 163, 226, 232,
248
Index   275
Edward the Confessor, Saint, king of
England
clothing and regalia, 38, 39, 42, 45,
46, 48
shrine of, 40, 43, 45, 211
Eleanor, queen of England, 152, 175
Eliot, Sir Thomas, 28
Elizabeth I, queen of England, 20, 21,
122
attendants of, 27, 75
barge, 61
birth and christening, 110, 112–113
books of devotion, 100–101
at court in 1536, 29
and Denny household, 226–227
education of, 118–120, 161
with Katherine Parr, dowager
queen, 164
with Katherine Parr as regent,
119–120
and Lord Seymour, 245
and Mary I, 116
at Mary’s coronation, 229
and Parker, Matthew, 118, 141
and tomb for Anne of Cleves, 231
translations for Katherine Parr and
Henry VIII, 119–120
weaned, 115
Elizabeth of York, queen of England,
6, 7, 19
almsgiving and maundy, 99, 100,
102
and ambassador Puebla, 136–38
Arthur’s birth and christening, 22,
106, 109, 112
Arthur’s death, 122–23
and Arthur’s marriage and festivities,
175, 177
attendants, female, 72
attendants, male, 62, 65, 66
barge, 77–78, 177
276  Index
birthdate, 102
books of devotion, 100–101
at Calais, 138
churching, 114–115
clothing for her daughters, 116
coronation, 6, 22–23, 38, 39–41,
48
coronation banquet, 41
correspondence with Ferdinand and
Isabella, 136–37
council and members, 66, 67
death of, 67, 114, 144, 204, 208
education, 8
and education of children, 116–117
Edmund’s birth, 101–102
entertainments, 79–80
entry and London procession,
38–39
funeral and burial, 208–212
gifts and rewards, 77, 79
greeting of Katherine of Aragon,
174–75
and Henry’s birth, 110
interest in her children, 7–8, 12,
115
jointure and revenue, 70, 81
and king’s mother, 20, 135–36
lineage, 109–110
and Margaret’s birth, 110, 114
and Margaret’s childhood marriage,
138, 144
and Mary’s birth, 110
marriage to Henry VII, 36
and Order of the Garter, 185
and “Our Lady’s girdle”, 111
and pilgrimages, 99, 100, 154, 244
pregnancies and childbirth, 106,
109, 110, 111
privy purse expenditures, 62, 69,
77–80, 99, 102, 116–17, 208,
244
progresses, 77–79
procession to Westminster Abbey,
209
public wedding, 21–22, 242
queenship of, 12, 138–39
signature of, 20
support for relatives, 120–121
tomb in Lady Chapel, 211–212
writ naming her king’s wife, 22
Elizabeth Woodville, queen of
England
children, 2
council, 68
death of, 17
and Elizabeth of York’s betrothal,
17
as godmother to Arthur, 112
income, 68, 81
Luxembourg lineage, 19
marriage to Edward IV, 2, 18–19
negotiations with Margaret Tudor,
2, 17–18
relationship with Elizabeth of York,
135–36
revenue, 81
Elston, Timothy, 103, 118
Eltham Palace, 60, 116, 151
Empson, Sir Richard, 67
Englefield, Sir Thomas, 148
entertainment, royal, 79, 177,
180–84, 185, 188–89, 193–94,
196, 246. . See also Hall, Edward,
on royal entertainment
entries, royal, 175, 177, 178, 179. .
See also individual monarchs and
consorts
Epiphany celebrations, 35, 173, 184,
188, 191, 242
Erasmus, Desiderious, 4, 8, 116, 118,
119, 155, 157, 160, 171n68, 203

F funerals, 11, 41, 203, 207, 227, 230,
Falkirk, Battle of, 175
Feckenham, John, abbot of
Westminster Abbey, 230
femme sole, 66
Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, 4,
143, 231
Ferdinand II, king of Aragon, 4,
33, 105, 134, 136, 137, 138,
142–43, 147, 177, 182
Fernandez, Diego, 134, 143, 156
Fetherston, Richard, 118
Field of Cloth of Gold, 138, 155,
191–94, 247
Figueroa y Córdoba, Jane de, duchess
of Feria (born Dormer), 29
Fish, Simon, 158
Fisher, John, bishop of Rochester, 20,
33, 148, 155–57, 160–61, 163,
211, 246
Fitzalan, Henry, earl of Arundel, 72,
231
Fitzalan, Mary, countess of Arundel
and Sussex, 72
Fitzalan, Thomas, earl of Arundel, 112
Fitzjames, Richard, bishop of
Rochester, 211
Fitzroy, Henry, duke of Richmond and
Somerset, 74, 83
Fitzwilliam, Sir William, earl of
Southampton, 103, 218
Flodden Field, Battle of, 149
Forrest, William, 99–100, 155
Foxe, John, 158, 162
Foxe, Richard, bishop of Winchester
and Durham, 79, 109, 136
Francis I, king of France, 25, 34, 61,
191, 246, 247
Franciscan Observants, 11, 33
Freeman, Thomas, 162
Fuensalida, Gutierre Gomez de, 142
Fuller, Thomas, 28
Index   277
232, 247–49. . See also individu-
als by name
G
Gante, Pedro de, 194–96
Gardiner, Stephen, bishop of
Winchester, 30, 32, 141, 162
Garter, Order of the, 185, 209
ceremonies of the, 13, 246
king of arms, 39, 41, 46
knights of the, 7, 210
women in, 18, 185–86
Gaunt, John of, duke of Lancaster, 24,
216
Gavara, Dame Maria de, 74
Geoffrey, William, 176
George, Saint, feast day of, 173, 185. .
See also Garter, Order of the
Gillespie, James, 186
Giustinan, Sebastian, 145
Goldsmith, Francis, 164
Gontier, Palamedies, 146–47
Goodrich, Thomas, bishop of Ely,
158–59, 215–16
Gordon, Lady Katherine, 83, 209
Grafton, Richard, 140
Gramont, Gabriel de, bishop of
Tarbes, 146
Great Wardrobe, 83–84, 101, 102,
149, 186
Greenwich Palace, 14n19, 33, 60,
108, 116, 177, 218
Grey, Elizabeth, Viscountess Lisle, 210
Grey, Lady Jane, 161, 226–27, 232,
248
Grey, Sir John, 2
Grey, Margaret, marchioness of
Dorset, 210
Grey, Nicholas, 79
Grey, Sir Richard, 2
278  Index
Grey, Thomas, marquess of Dorset,
210
Grindal, William, 120
Guevara, Antonio de, 222
Guildford, Sir Richard, 208, 217
Guillem, John, 6
Gunton, Simon, 216
Gwalther, Rudolf, 164
H and Battle of Bosworth Field, 2,
Hall, Edward
on Anne Boleyn’s miscarriage, 140
on coronation of Anne Boelyn,
43–47
on coronation of Katherine of
Aragon, 33–34, 42
on Henry and Katherine’s grief, 123
as member of Reformation
Parliament, 140
on royal entertainment, 184,
186–88, 191, 193, 196, 247
Hall, Mary (neé Lascelles), 222
“Hall’s Chronicle”. See Hall, Edward
Hamilton, Dakota, 62, 71, 72, 85,
122
Hamilton, James, earl of Arran, 150
Hampton Court Palace, 14n19, 60,
77, 110, 152, 190, 205, 212, 222
Hansen, Matthew, 100
Hastings, Anne, countess of
Huntingdon, Lady Hastings, 75
Hastings, Sir George, earl of
Huntingdon, 75, 180
Haveus, Theodore, 231
Heath, Nicholas, archbishop of York,
231
Heneage, Sir Thomas, 26, 107
Henry II, king of France (duke of
Orléans), 146
Henry III, king of England, 152, 175
Henry IV, king of England, 18
Henry V, king of England, 18
Henry VI, king of England, 18, 211,
214
Henry VII, king of England, 2, 5, 48
and ambassadors, 133
and Arthur’s marriage, 34
“Articles”, 174. . See also “Articles
Ordained by King Henry
VII for the Regulation of His
Household”
19, 97
and Battle of Stoke, 21, 48
betrothal and marriage of daughter
Margaret, 115
birth of, 138
birth of children, 109
burial of, 211–12
at Calais, 205
and children’s christenings, 207
coronation of, 20
and coronation of Elizabeth of York,
38–39, 207
death of, 204
dispensations to wed Elizabeth of
York, 21
dispute with Lady Cecily, 120
and education of children, 115
financial support to Elizabeth of
York, 65, 81, 84, 111
funeral of, 74
and Great Wardrobe, 83–84, 101,
102
grief at Arthur’s death, 122–23
and Katherine of Aragon, 3, 33, 175
lieutenant of God on earth, 6,
97–98
lineage, 20, 21, 97
marriage to Elizabeth of York,
35–36, 241
offices to Arthur, 117
offices to Henry, 117

and Order of the Garter, 186–87
Palm Sunday celebration, 101–102
and papacy, 22
patronage by, 156–157
plate and jewels, 84–85
privy purse, 23, 81, 82
progresses, 99
properties of, 59–60
public wedding, 2, 21–23
and rebellions, 21–22, 83
restores property to Elizabeth
Woodville, 68–69
and sexual intimacy with consort,
106
and sisters-in-law, 120–21
statute legitimating family, 20–21
swore to wed Elizabeth of York, 2,
17
witness Arthur’s wedding, 175, 177
writ naming Elizabeth wife, 22
Henry VIII, king of England, 3, 4–5,
6, 8, 10, 48. . See also individual
consorts
almsgiving and maundy, 103
Anglo-Cleves treaty, 35
and Anne Boleyn’s coronation,
46–47
at Arthur’s wedding and fesitivities,
177, 181
and artichokes, 106
attack on English Church, 25
and Battle of Spurs, 147, 149
betrothal to Katherine of Aragon,
3, 33
birthdate of, 116
and Candlemas Day, 101
“castle of loyalty”, 189
coronation, shared, 3, 6, 34
coronation festivities, 34, 41–42, 43
courtship of Anne Boleyn, 25, 82
and Cranmer, 26
daily schedule of, 107–108
Index   279
death of, 204, 226
death of Jane Seymour, 232
divorce from Anne of Cleves, 4, 31,
228, 230
dissolution of marriage to Katherine
of Aragon, 18–19, 25, 26, 82
education of, 117
and education of children, 116–19
and Elizabeth’s weaning, 115
and “fall” while jousting, 139–41
and Field of Cloth of Gold, 138,
155, 191–92, 194, 247
funeral and burial, 226
gifts to Anne Boleyn, 25
grant of offices and noble title, 121
Great Wardrobe, 83–84, 101, 102
infant son Henry, 101, 110, 123
lieutenant of God on earth, 6,
97–98
marriage to Anne Boleyn, 26
marriage to Anne of Cleves, 3,
34–35
marriage to Jane Seymour, 30
marriage to Katherine Howard, 31
marriage to Katherine of Aragon,
3, 33
marriage to Katherine Parr, 32–33
marriage negotiations for Mary,
145–47
and Mary’s French betrothal, 146
motivation for marriages, 23–24, 36
plate and jewels, 84–85
and privy chamber, 61
privy purse expenditures, 82
properties of, 59–60
and relatives of wives, 121–22
as Robin Hood, 186–87
and sexual intimacy with consorts,
106–108
war with France, 33
Hepburn, Patrick, earl of Bothwell,
144
280  Index
heralds and kings of arms, 27, 39,
40, 41, 140, 149, 178, 180,
187, 189, 207, 208, 212, 216,
227, 230. . See also Wriothesley,
Charles
Herbert, Anne, future countess of
Pembroke, 31, 32, 33, 122, 161
Herbert, Edward, Lord Herbert of
Cherbury, 24
Herbert, William, earl of Pembroke
(brother-in-law of Katherine
Parr), 32, 33, 122
Heron, John, 79, 148, 188
Heydon (or Haydon), William, 62, 67
Hilsey, John, bishop of Rochester,
215–16, 232, 248
Holbein the Younger, Hans, 34, 84,
85, 142
Holden, Thomas, 65
Hollingsworth, Thomas, 113
Horsman, Margery, 72
Houlbrooke, Ralph, 113
Howard, Agnes, dowager duchess of
Norfolk, 30–31, 76, 81, 221, 224
Howard, Anne, 120
Howard, Charles, 76, 122
Howard, Lord Edmund, 121, 183
Howard, Elizabeth, dowager duchess
of Norfolk, 231
Howard, George, 122
Howard, Henry, earl of Surrey, 195
Howard, Margaret, Lady Howard of
Effingham, 224, 231
Howard, Thomas, Lord, 76, 88, 104
Howard, Thomas, second duke of
Norfolk, 24, 149, 174, 208
Howard, Thomas, third duke of
Norfolk, 30, 70, 105, 120, 180
Howard, William, Lord Howard of
Effingham, 190–91, 224, 231
Humanism, 8, 117, 155, 156, 157,
158, 106, 161, 163, 246
Husee, John, 63, 75, 189–90
I
income, queens’ (dower and jointure),
6, 10, 66, 68, 69–71, 76, 86,
243. . See also individual queens
individual queens, 1, 6, 48, 65
Innocent VIII, pope, 21–22
Institutio Christiani Matrimonii, 155
Institution de la Religion Chrestienne,
120
Instruction of a Christian Woman, 118
intercessory role of queens, 6, 133,
152–53
Isabella, Holy Roman Empress, 27
Isabella, queen of Castile, 33, 136–37,
145
Isabella, queen of England, 18
Ives, E. W., 139
J
James II, king of Scotland, 19, 150
James IV, king of Scotland, 115, 136,
138, 144, 149
James V, king of Scotland, 34, 150,
179, 222
James, Susan, 31, 102, 160
Jane Seymour, queen of England, 2, 5,
8, 29, 72, 245
almsgiving and maundy, 100, 103,
169n59
attendants, female, 27, 72–73, 75
attendants, male, 63
betrothal to Henry VIII, 30
birth of Edward, 110
birth year discussion, 27
Book of Hours, 101
Corpus Christi mass, 30
council and members, 111
at court in 1536, 26–27, 28

death, 30, 73, 114, 204, 207, 212
education, 8
funeral and burial, 212–13, 230–31,
232–33, 247–48
Henry VIII’s courtship of, 26–27,
28, 29, 139
household, 62, 63–64, 72, 73, 75,
84
jointure and finances, 70
lineage, 24
patronage, 122, 169n56
pregnancy and childbirth, 30, 73,
105, 109, 113, 114, 204, 207
queenship, 12
religious views, 158
return of royal gift, 28
river entry to Westminster, 177–78,
179
wedding, 30
jewel house, 39, 60, 84, 85, 91n68
Joanne of Navarre, queen of
England and dowager duchess
of Brittany, 18
John the Baptist, St., Feast of the
Nativity of, 41–42, 48, 193
Johnson, Otwell, 224–25
jointure. See income, queens’
Jones, Michael, 20
Julius II, pope, 3, 33
K attendants, male, 61, 62–63, 65
Katherine Howard, queen of England,
2, 10, 12, 23, 107, 119, 121
age, 30
almsgiving and maundy, 100,
103–104
arrest and imprisonment, 142, 224
as attendant of Anne of Cleves, 30,
73, 247
attendants, female, 72
attendants, male, 63–64, 67
Index   281
bill of attainder against, 224
books of devotion, 100–101
charges of adultery, 4, 224
council and members, 62, 66
courtship by Henry VIII, 30–31, 81
and Culpeper, Sir Thomas, 222–223
death and burial, 221, 249
education, 8
execution, 218, 224
household, 62, 66, 73
intercession, 153
jewelry, 85–86
jointure and finances, 70, 90n53
lineage, 24
procession north with Henry VIII,
179–80
property, 70–71
river entry to Westminster, 177–79
sexual abuse of, 222–23, 225
support for family members,
121–22, 154
wedding to Henry VIII, 31
Katherine of Aragon, queen of
England, 2, 3, 5, 6
almsgiving and Maundy, 99–100,
103
annulment, 20
and Athequa, Jorge de, bishop of
Llandaff, 156
attendants, female, 24, 61, 72, 74,
75
barge, 61
betrothal to Arthur, 136
betrothal to future Henry VIII, 3,
33
birth of Henry, 110
birth and education of Mary, 110
books, 8, 100–101
Burgundian entry to London, 176
at Calais, 194
and Cardinal College, Oxford, 155
282  Index
“castle of loyalty”, 189
and Chapuys’ visit, 214
coronation festivities, 34, 41–42,
43, 175
coronation, shared, 3, 6, 34, 36,
41–42, 62, 173
council and members, 66, 67
death of, 204, 214
death of Arthur, 33, 36
and diplomacy, 134
dissolution of marriage to Henry
VIII, 4, 17, 20, 25, 26, 36, 82
dowry, 33–34
and education, 8, 117, 155
and Erasmus, 155
as father’s ambassador, 4, 133,
142–43, 164
Field of Cloth of Gold, 155, 191–94
funeral and burial, 213, 215–16,
217–18, 233
and Great Wardrobe, 84
grief at infant son’s death, 97, 122,
123
household, 62–63, 65, 72
intercession for rioters, 152–53
and interest in children, 7, 115
jewelry, 85
jointure and finances, 69, 70, 76, 83
and Lady Willoughby’s visit, 214
marriage to Arthur, 156, 175
marriage to Henry VIII, 33, 36
and Mary’s betrothals, 101, 144–46
and music, 80
parents of, 33
patronage by, 71, 154–57
and pilgrimages, 11, 100, 154, 217,
244
plate, 85, 190
as political support for Henry VIII,
121
pregnancy and childbirth, 105, 109,
110, 113
as princess of Wales, 30, 173
property of, 70
provisions of will, 217
queenship, 12, 214, 216, 231
as regent, 8, 147–51
religion, 8, 11, 12, 99, 154, 156
rustication of, 196
and sexual intimacy time with king,
106–108
to Wales with Arthur, 122, 144
wedding to Arthur at St. Paul’s
Cathedral, 3, 175
wedding to Arthur festivities,
176–77, 180–81, 188, 242
wedding night with Arthur, 108,
177
Katherine of Valois, queen of England
(wife of Henry V), 226
Katherine Parr, queen of England, 2,
6, 11, 153
almsgiving and maundy, 100, 102,
227
attendants, female, 72
attendants, male, 63–64, 65
birthdate, 102
books by, 160–62
books of, 12, 100–101
council and members, 68
death, 204, 227
dispute over jewels, 85
education, 8
and Elizabeth, Princess, 226
fools, 79
funeral and burial, 227–28, 248
gifts, 190
at Henry VIII’s death, 226
household, 62–66, 72–73, 76
jointure and finances, 70–71
and Lara, Don Manriquez de,
194–95
lineage, 24
and marriage to Henry VIII, 32–33

marriage to Lord Latimer, 32
and Mary I, 119
patronage by, 71, 154, 164
pregnancy and childbirth, 226
property of, 70
queenship, 11, 12
as regent, 8, 80, 119, 147–52, 204
and religion, 161–162, 164
and royal stepchildren, 12, 115,
119–120, 130n43, 152
and Seymour, Lord, 31–32, 85,
226, 232
support for family members, 122,
154
Kempe, Thomas, bishop of London,
135
Kingston, Sir William, 74, 159, 218,
220
Kipling, Gordon, 176, 197n9
Kyme, Thomas, 120, 234n13
Knyvet, Sir Thomas, 182, 183
Kyng, John, 63
L Martiques, 111
Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey, 211,
233, 248
Lambert, Francis, 158
Lancaster, duchy of, 66–67, 70,
90n53, 243
Lancaster, John of, duke of Bedford,
18
Lara, Don Manriquez de, third duke
of Najera, 194
Lascelles, John, 222
Latimer, Hugh, bishop of Worcester,
158, 159, 246
Latimer, William, Anne Boleyn’s
chaplain, 11, 68, 74, 99, 100,
158, 159
Latin, teaching of, 116, 117–18, 120,
161
Index   283
Laynesmith, Joanna, 12, 19, 37,
50n15
Lee, Laurence, 65
Lee, Roland, bishop of Coventry and
Lichfield, 26
Lefevre d’Etaples, Jacques, 157
Leo X, pope, 157
Linacre, Thomas, 117
Llandaff, bishop of. See Athequa, Jorge
de, bishop of Llandaff
Londoño, Sancho de, 136
Longland, John, bishop of Lincoln,
155, 180, 215, 216
Lorraine, Antoine I, duke of, 4, 34,
35, 142
Lorraine, Francis, duke of, 4, 34, 35,
142
Louis XI, king of France, 19
Louis XII, king of France, 143
Louis XIV, king of France, 35
Lovell, Francis de, Viscount Lovell, 22
Lovell, Sir Thomas, 21, 67
Luther, Martin, 158, 161
Luxembourg, Francis de, Viscount
Luxembourg, Jacques de, seigneur de
Richebourg, 19
Luxembourg, Jaquetta of, dowager
duchess of Bedford, 18, 19, 50n9
Luxembourg, Louis of, cardinal,
bishop of Thérouanne, 18, 50n9
Luxembourg, Louis de, count of St.
Pol, 19
M
Mallett, Francis, 120
Manners, Eleanor, countess of
Rutland, 72, 73
Manners, Thomas, earl of Rutland,
63–64, 180
Manox, Henry, 222–23, 225
284  Index
Margaret, queen of Scotland, 75–76,
91n68, 245
and Arthur’s marriage festivities,
176–177, 181
betrothal to James IV, 115, 136,
138, 144
birth, 110, 114, 116
and countess of Richmond, 144
danced with brother Henry, 181
death, 204
education, 115, 116–117
father’s attention to, 115
and Garter, Order of the, 186
and Katherine of Aragon’s entry,
176
marriage to James IV, 115, 136,
138, 144
and marriage at a young age, 136,
138, 144
meeting with Erasmus, 116
mother’s purchases for, 116–117
Margaret of Austria, regent of the
Netherlands, 137, 166n14
Marguerite, queen de Navarre, 120,
157
Maria, princess of Austria, 231
Marillac, Charles de, 107, 134, 142,
165n5, 175, 221, 224
Marot, Clément, 157
marriage, royal/noble, 1, 3–4, 8, 9,
17, 18–19, 22, 23–24, 33, 35, 37
Marshall, Mrs., 74
Mary of Guise, queen of Scotland, 34,
64, 150
Mary, queen dowager of France, 245
and Arthur’s wedding festivities,
177
betrothal to future Charles V, 101,
143, 144
birth, 116
and Candlemas Day, 101
children, 216
death, 204
education, 116–117
and Field of Cloth of Gold, 155
godmother to Mary I, 111
marriage to Louis XII, 143
meeting with Erasmus, 116
mother’s purchases for, 116–117
as wife to Charles Brandon, duke of
Suffolk, 155, 216
Mary I, queen of England, 10, 20, 31
almsgiving, 100
and Anne of Cleves, 229, 248
attendants, 27
betrothal to Charles V, 101
betrothal to Francis, the dauphin,
144–46
birth, 111
and chaplains, 100
christening, 111
Christmas festivities at Wales, 188
coronation of, 229
and Duwes, Giles, 117
education of, 117–118, 119, 155
and Fetherston, Richard, 117
at Henry VIII’s death, 226
and illegitimacy, 119, 146–47
influence of Vives, Juan Luis, 118
and Katherine Parr, 119
and Lara, Don Manriquez de,
194–95
and Linacre, Thomas, 117
negotiations for French marriage,
144–48
and parents’ divorce, 119
as princess of Wales, 118
provisions of will, 217
questions about marital age, 145–46
and royal succession, 116, 146
in sister Elizabeth’s nursery, 116,
119
translation of the Paraphrase of the
Gospel of St. John, 119

and Westminster Abbey, 229–30
Mary II, queen of England, 213
Mary of Guelders, queen of Scotland,
19
Mary, queen of Scotland, 64, 122
Mateer, David, 10
maternity clothing, 108
Matienson, Johannes de, sub-prior of
Santa Cruz, 136
Matilda, Holy Roman Empress, 26
Matthew, Nicholas, 79
Mattingly, Garrett, 123
maundy ritual, 11, 102, 103–104,
125n11, 126n12, 126n15, 244
May Day festivities, 13, 153, 173,
187, 246
medicine, 123, 221. . See also sexuality
and human reproduction beliefs
folklore in, 105–106
knowledge of, 106, 203, 204–205,
244
practitioners of, 204
religion and, 97, 104–105, 204–
205, 244
role of kings, 97
role of physicians in, 97
and pregnancy and childbirth,
104–105
and understanding of disease, 204,
205
minstrels, 10, 38, 41, 79–80, 81, 83,
93n79, 117, 144, 183, 188, 210
Mirror de l’ame Pécheresse, Le, 120
Molinet, Jean, 176
Mont, Christopher, 66
More, Sir Thomas, 25, 74, 107, 116,
118, 154, 157
Mortimer, Roger, earl of March, 18,
109
Morton, John, cardinal archbishop of
Canterbury, 40–41, 136
Mouat, Dr., 221
Index   285
Mueller, Janel, 160, 162, 164
mourning customs, 208, 209, 213,
215, 226
Muxica, Martin de, 143
N
Nash, Treadway, 228
Neile, Richard, archbishop of York and
dean of Westminster Abbey, 231
Nelson, Horatio, Admiral, 209
Neville, Sir Edward, 182
Neville, George, Lord Abergavenny,
176
Neville, John, Lord Latimer, 31, 115
Neville, John, Lord, 32, 115
Neville, Lady Margaret, 31, 32, 100,
115
Neville, Richard, earl of Warwick, 19
New Year’s Day gift-giving, 13,
27, 62, 82, 85–86, 120, 173,
189–90, 246
Norris, Henry, 26, 139
Norris, Mary, 73
North, Alice, Lady North (baroness),
231
North, Edward, Lord North, 231
nursery of royal children, 33, 113,
115, 116
O
Okerlund, Arlene, 174
Order of the Garter. See Garter, Order
of the
“Ordinances for Henry VIII’s
Household”, 64, 107, 108
Orléans, Louis of, duke of
Longueville, 147
Orme, Nicholas, 161
Ormrod, Mark, 18
Ortiz, Pedro, Dr., 27
286  Index
Osbert of Clare, prior of Westminster
Abbey, 38
Osburg, Richard, 45
P Erasmus’s opposition to, 155
Pace, Richard, 109, 157
Paget, William, Lord Paget (earlier
Sir), 63, 67, 231
Parker, Matthew, archbishop of
Canterbury, 118, 141
Parkhurst, John, bishop of Norwich,
163–64
Parr, Elizabeth, countess of Essex and
marchioness of Northampton
(neé Brooke), 76
Parr, Dame Maud, 72, 161
Parr, William, Lord Parr of Horton,
64, 149
Parr, William, marquess of
Northampton and earl of Essex,
31, 76, 107, 122
Parsons, John Carmi, 7, 207
Paston, William, 79
patronage. See individual monarchs
Paul III, pope, 34, 147
Paulet, Elizabeth marchioness of
Winchester, 230
Paulet, William, marquess of
Winchester, 115, 212–13, 218,
230
Percy, Anne, Lady, 83
Percy, Lord Henry, fifth earl of
Northumberland, 24, 63,
125n11, 157, 219
Petre, Sir William, 149
Philip, archduke of Austria, 138
Philip, king of England and Spain (II),
229, 231
Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy,
19, 49n8, 176
Philippa, queen of England, 185
pilgrimage(s), 159, 204. . See also
Walsingham, Lady of
Anne Boleyn’s opposition to, 100,
157
Elizabeth of York and, 99, 154, 244
Henry VIII’s prohibition of, 100
Katherine of Aragon and, 11, 100,
154, 217, 244
sites of, 99
Plantagenet, Anne, countess of
Cambridge (neé Mortimer), 109
Plantagenet, Lady Anne, 112, 209,
234n13
Plantagenet, Arthur, Viscount Lisle,
63, 105, 141, 189
Plantagenet, Lady Bridget, 121,
234n13
Plantagenet, Cecily, duchess of York,
174
Plantagenet, Lady Cecily, 38–39, 41,
112, 181, 234n13
Plantagenet, Edward, earl of Warwick,
21
Plantagenet, George, duke of
Clarence, 19
Plantagenet, Honor, Viscountess Lisle,
63
Plantagenet, Lady Katherine, 120,
208, 234n13
Plantagenet, Richard, duke of York,
109
Plantagenet, Richard, duke of York
and Norfolk, 17, 186
Plantagenet, Richard, earl of
Cambridge, 109
Pole, Edmund de la, duke of
Suffolk, 120, 234n13
Pole, Elizabeth de la, duchess of
Suffolk, 21, 120–21, 185,
199n31
Pole, John de la, earl of Lincoln, 21

Pole, Margaret, countess of Salisbury,
71
Polizi, Jean de sieur de, bailly of
Troyes, 44
population statistics
child mortality, 113
life expectancy and old age,
203–204
maternal mortality, 113–14
Potter, David, 145
Poynings, Sir Edward, 190
Prayers and Meditations, 120, 160
Psalms or Prayers, 160
privy council, 73, 122, 148, 153, 223
privy purse expenditures of
Anne of Cleves, 62, 81
Elizabeth of York, 62, 69, 77–80,
99, 102, 116–17, 188, 208,
244
Elizabeth Woodville, 69
Henry VII, 23, 79–80, 81–82
Henry VIII, 81–82
Katherine of Aragon, 76
privy purse, keeper of, 61
Puebla, Rodrigo Gonzales de, 135,
137–38, 142
purification. See churching
Q Boleyn
queens’ deaths, significance of, 207,
232
queenship, defined, 1, 2, 5, 6–12, 207,
232
R Roper, Margaret, 154
Radcliffe, Elizabeth, countess of
Sussex and Lady Fitzwalter, 75,
91n64
Radcliffe, Mary, 27
Index   287
Raimondi de Soncino, Raimondo de,
108
Rar, Dominico, 134
Rede, John, 117
religion, 98. . See also individual
monarchs
closets, 98–99
devotional routines, 101–102
as divisive issue, 11
duties/role of monarchs in, 97–98
humanist critique of, 158
and medicine, 97, 104–105,
204–205, 244
and sexuality beliefs, 104–105
practice of, 98
as social manager, 98
Renard, Simon, 114
Revel, Tristram, 158
Rich, Richard, 218
Richard III, king of England, 2, 5, 17,
20–22, 55n83, 68, 97, 120, 121
Richards, Griffith, 63, 76
Richardson, Glenn, 192, 194
Richmond Palace, 59, 78, 175, 177,
191, 208, 228
Ridgway, Claire, 221
Robin Hood, 187
Rochester, Bishop’s Palace in, 35
Rochford, Lady Anne. See Anne
Rochford, George, Lord (Viscount
Rochford), 47–48, 139, 218, 222
Rochford, Jane, Viscountess, 72, 222,
223, 224
Rochford, Mary, Lady, (neé Boleyn),
24, 29, 73, 81, 121, 219
Rudimenta grammatices, 118
Russell, Jocelyne, 134
Ryngeley, Sir Edward, 106
288  Index
S Smith, Sir Clement, 28
Sadler, Sir Ralph, 94n94, 108
Salvin, Anthony, 220
Sampson, Richard, bishop of
Chichester, 145
Sandes, Sir William, 79
Savoy, Bona of, 19
Savoy, Louise of, queen mother of
France, 146, 193
Saxony, John Frederick, duke of, 34
Saxony, Sybilla, duchess of (neé
Cleves), 34
Schofield, Roger, 113
Scott, Sir George Gilbert, 228
Sepulveda, Juan de, 135
sexuality and human reproduction
beliefs, 104–105, 106, 114, 225
Seymour, Anne, countess of Hertford
and duchess of Somerset (neé
Stanhope), 28, 50n13, 72, 73,
80, 163, 191
Seymour, Edward, duke of Somerset,
5, 27, 28, 85, 121, 154, 226
Seymour, John, Sir, 26, 27
Seymour, Margery (neé Wentworth),
24
Seymour, Lady Mary, 227
Seymour, Thomas, Lord Seymour of
Sudeley, 13, 31, 85, 151, 226,
228, 245
Shaxton, Nicholas, bishop of Salisbury,
158, 159–60, 246
Shelton, Anne (neé Boleyn), 72, 119,
141
Shelton, Mary, 74, 243
Shephard, Robert, 134
Simnel, Lambert, 21, 22–23
Skelton, John, 117
Skip, John, bishop of Hereford, 158,
159, 218, 220
Skut, John, 63
Smeaton, Mark, 80, 93n79, 139, 218
Smith, Dorothy (neé Seymour), 27, 28
Smith, William, bishop of Lichfield
and Lincoln, 156, 208
Smyth, John, 63, 71
Smuts, R. Malcolm, 38, 175
Society of Antiquaries, 174
Somerset, Charles, earl of Worcester,
144
Soncino, Raimundo de, 108, 135
Southwell, Sir Robert, 148
Spurs, Battle of, 147, 149
St. Anne, 45
St. James Palace, 32, 60
St. John’s College, Cambridge
University, 156, 160, 163
St. Paul’s Cathedral, 3, 32, 109, 175,
176, 178, 230–31
St. Swithun’s Priory, Winchester, 109,
112
Stafford, Edward, duke of
Buckingham, 43, 59, 75, 91n64,
192
Stafford, Elizabeth, Lady, 208, 209,
210
Stafford, Henry, duke of Buckingham,
121
Stafford, Sir Humphrey, 22
Stafford, Pauline, 6
Stafford, Thomas, 22
Stafford, William, 121
Standish, Henry, bishop of Asaph, 157
Staniland, Kay, 174
Stanley, Thomas, earl of Derby, 39,
112, 209
Starkey, David, 31
Stewart, Henry, Lord Darnley, 122
Stewart, Matthew, earl of Lennox,
122, 150
Stile, John, 33, 133, 137
Stoke, Battle of, 21, 22, 48

Stokesley, John, bishop of London,
157, 178
Stonor, Mrs., 73, 76
Streitberger, W.R., 188, 189
sumptuary laws, 7, 14n12
Symondes, Dr., 229
T Tudor, Jasper, duke of Bedford and
Taylor, George, 109, 190
Taylor, John, 220
testaments. See death, preparations for
Tewkesbury, Battle of, 18
Thirlby, Thomas, bishop of
Westminster, 149, 163
Thurley, Simon, 108
tournaments, 10, 13, 41, 43, 48,
56n87, 129n38, 177, 181–82,
186–89, 191–93, 246, 248
queen’s role at, 10, 13, 173, 182
Treaty of London, 191–92
Trevisan, Andrea, 135
“Triumph of Honor”, 176
Tudor, Arthur, prince of Wales (son
of Elizabeth of York), 6, 65,
116, 128n32, 137, 156, 216,
241, 245
as Arturus, 176
betrothal to Katherine of Aragon,
136
birth and christening, 22, 106,
111–12, 129n38
death and grief of his parents, 2, 17,
33, 36, 113, 122–23
education, 117, 161
Farnham nursey, 115
grant of offices, 117
greeting of Katherine of Aragon,
175
to Wales with Katherine, 122, 144
wedding at St. Paul’s Cathedral, 3,
175
Index   289
wedding festivities, 176–77,
180–81, 188, 242
wedding night, 108, 177
Tudor, Edmund, Lord, 116
Tudor, Edmund, earl of Richmond,
109
Tudor, Lady Elizabeth, 116, 208
Tudor, Henry, Lord, 101, 110, 123
earl of Pembroke, 22, 39, 121
Tudor, Lady Katherine, 116
Tudor, Katherine, duchess of
Bedford (neé Woodville), 41,
121
Tudor, Margaret, countess of
Richmond, 120, 245
almsgiving and maundy, 103
and Arthur’s marriage to Katherine
of Aragon, 33, 177
and “Articles” , 54n6, 125n10, 174
birth of son Henry, 138
celebrated Candlemas Day, 101
death and burial, v
founder of St. John’s College,
Cambridge, 156
as godmother of Princess Margaret,
138
and Henry VII’s dispute with Lady
Cecily, 120
at Henry VIII’s coronation, 26
and Margaret’s youthful marriage,
138, 144, 245
marriage to Edmund Tudor, earl of
Richmond, 138
month’s mind, sermon for, 33, 211
negotiations with Elizabeth
Woodville, 2, 17–18
and Order of the Garter, 185
relationship with Elizabeth of York,
20, 50n13, 23, 174, 245
signature of, 20
Spanish views of, 135–38
290  Index
Tudor, Owen, 226
Tunstall, Cuthbert, bishop of London
and Durham, 145, 157
Tuke, Sir Brian, 61, 83, 189
Turre, Francis, viscount of Turènne,
25, 146
Twelfth Night celebrations. See
Epiphany
Tyndale, William, 158
Tyrrel, Sir Thomas, 63
Tyrwhitt, Sir Robert, 66
U 43, 44, 45, 46, 60, 65, 110, 153,
Ughtred, Elizabeth (neé Seymour),
27, 28
Underwood, Malcolm, 20
V 229–30, 233, 248, 249
Valois, Charles of, duke of Angoulême,
145
Valois, Francis of, 145
Vaughan, Stephen, 67, 135
Vere, Anne de, dowager countess of
Oxford, 46
Vere, Elizabeth de, countess of
Oxford, 215
Vere, John de, thirteenth earl of
Oxford, 112
Vere, John de, fifteenth earl of Oxford,
45
Vergil, Polydore, 23
Vesey, John, bishop of Exeter, 157,
188
Vives, Juan Luis, 8, 118, 155, 246
W Wolsey, Thomas, cardinal archbishop
Wallop, Sir John, 153
Walsingham, Lady of, 99, 100, 150,
217, 244
Walsingham, Sir Edmund, 64
Walter, Lewis, 77
war games, 181–182, 188, 193, 246,
248. . See also tournaments
Warbeck, Perkin, 83, 209
Warham, William, archbishop of
Canterbury, 26, 42–43, 148,
156–57, 210–11
Weldon, Sir Anthony, 20
Welles, John, Viscount Welles, 120,
234n13
West, Nicholas, bishop of Ely, 157
Westminster Palace and Hall, 37, 41,
178, 180, 182, 189, 242
Westminster Abbey, 30, 37
and burials, 211, 213, 233
coronations at, 229, 242
and funerals, 208, 209, 217,
lady chapel at, 211, 248
monks of, 39
and regalia, 38, 46, 111
weddings at, 2, 21, 242
Weston, Sir Francis, 74, 82, 139
Whitehall Palace, 45, 60, 162, 226
Whitford, Richard, 160
William III and Mary II, monarchs of
England, 20
Willoughby, Maria, Lady Willoughby
de Eresby (neé de Salinas), 74,
214, 215
wills. See death, preparations for
Winchester Cathedral, 112
Windsor Castle, 12, 14n19, 60, 80,
186, 211, 213, 233
Wingfield, Sir Anthony, 73
Wingfield, Sir Richard, 138, 145, 192
of York, 74, 82, 108, 146, 148,
149, 164
 Index   291

and annulment of Henry VIII’s first
marriage, 25
celebrating Palm Sunday, 101
and Compton, William, 71, 75,
92n68
and Evil May Day rebels, 153
and Field of Cloth of Gold, 192–93
as founder of Cardinal College,
Oxford, 155
and Katherine of Aragon’s preg-
nancy, 105, 109
and Mary’s Christmas festivities,
188–89
patronage by, 155, 157
properties of, 25, 60, 78
Woodville, Richard, first Earl Rivers,
2, 18
Woodville, Richard, third Earl Rivers,
99
Worthy, William, 79
Wotton, Sir Henry, 134
Wotton, Nicholas, 34, 142
Wriothesley, Charles, 27, 140, 178,
179, 219
Wriothesley, Sir Thomas, 149, 151,
162, 163, 223
Wyatt, Sir Thomas, 153
Y
York Place, 30, 60