Royal Journeys in Early Modern Europe

Progresses Palaces and Panache 1st

Edition Anthony Musson J P D Cooper
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/royal-journeys-in-early-modern-europe-progresses-pa
laces-and-panache-1st-edition-anthony-musson-j-p-d-cooper/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Royal Journeys in Early Modern Europe Progresses

Palaces and Panache 1st Edition Anthony Musson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/royal-journeys-in-early-modern-
europe-progresses-palaces-and-panache-1st-edition-anthony-musson/

Reading Mathematics in Early Modern Europe Material

Readings in Early Modern Culture 1st Edition Philip
Beeley (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/reading-mathematics-in-early-
modern-europe-material-readings-in-early-modern-culture-1st-
edition-philip-beeley-editor/

Food, Religion and Communities in Early Modern Europe

1st Edition Christopher Kissane

https://ebookmeta.com/product/food-religion-and-communities-in-
early-modern-europe-1st-edition-christopher-kissane/

Sartorial Politics in Early Modern Europe Fashioning

Women 1st Edition Erin Griffey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sartorial-politics-in-early-modern-
europe-fashioning-women-1st-edition-erin-griffey/
Embodiment Expertise and Ethics in Early Modern Europe
1st Edition Marlene L. Eberhart (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/embodiment-expertise-and-ethics-in-
early-modern-europe-1st-edition-marlene-l-eberhart-editor/

Journeys to Heaven and Hell tours of the afterlife in

the early Christian tradition 1st Edition Bart D.
Ehrman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/journeys-to-heaven-and-hell-tours-
of-the-afterlife-in-the-early-christian-tradition-1st-edition-
bart-d-ehrman/

Underground Mathematics Craft Culture and Knowledge

Production in Early Modern Europe Thomas Morel

https://ebookmeta.com/product/underground-mathematics-craft-
culture-and-knowledge-production-in-early-modern-europe-thomas-
morel/

Liberty Slavery and the Law in Early Modern Western

Europe Filip Batselé

https://ebookmeta.com/product/liberty-slavery-and-the-law-in-
early-modern-western-europe-filip-batsele/

Cultures of Conflict Resolution in Early Modern Europe

1st Edition Stephen Cummins (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cultures-of-conflict-resolution-in-
early-modern-europe-1st-edition-stephen-cummins-editor/
Royal Journeys in Early
Modern Europe

Authored by a unique combination of university academics and

heritage professionals, this book offers new perspectives on journeys
made by Henry VIII and other monarchs, their political and social
impact and the logistics required in undertaking such trips. It
explores the performance of kingship and queenship by itinerant
monarchs, investigating how, by a variety of means, they engaged
and interacted with their subjects, and the practical and symbolic
functions associated with these activities. Moving beyond the purely
English experience, it provides a European dimension by comparing
progresses in England and France. Royal marriage and the royal
progress share common features which are considered through an
analysis of the trans-European journeys made by future spouses,
notably Anne of Cleves. Also, the book reveals the significance of the
art and architecture of houses and palaces, and how the celebrated
meeting of English and French kings at the Field of Cloth of Gold in
1520 was part of a wider diplomatic performance full of symbolism
including the exchange of gifts and socialising between the two royal
courts.
Drawing on contemporary art, material culture and surviving
buildings, the book will be of interest to all who enjoy the intrigue
and splendour of sixteenth-century courts.
Anthony Musson is Head of Research at Historic Royal Palaces and
currently leading an AHRC-funded research project: ‘Henry VIII on
Tour: Tudor Palaces and Royal Progresses’. He was previously
Professor of Legal History and Director of the Bracton Centre for
Legal History Research at the University of Exeter. He has published
extensively in the fields of political culture in medieval and early
modern England as well as legal iconography and the legal
profession.

J. P. D. Cooper is Reader in Early Modern History at the University

of York and Director of the Society of Antiquaries of London. He is
Co-Investigator of the ‘Henry VIII on Tour’ network. He has
published books on Tudor royal propaganda and the Elizabethan
statesman Sir Francis Walsingham, and edited volumes on Henry
VIII’s arms and armour and the architectural and political culture of
the Palace of Westminster. He was Principal Investigator of the ‘St
Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster’ and ‘Listening to the Commons’
AHRC-funded projects.
Routledge Research in Early Modern History

The Trial of Giordano Bruno

Germano Maifreda

A Genlis Education and Enlightenment Values

Mrs Chinnery (1766–1840) and her Children
Denise Yim

Anti-Jacobitism and the English People, 1714–1746

Jonathan Oates

The Eye of the Crown

The Development and Evolution of the Elizabethan Secret Service
Kristin M.S. Bezio

Parliamentarism in Northern and East-Central Europe in the

Long Eighteenth Century
Volume I: Representative Institutions and Political Motivation
Edited by István M. Szijártó, Wim Blockmans, and László Kontler

The Culture and Politics of Regime Change in Italy, c.1494 –

c.1559
Edited by Alexander Lee and Brian Jeffrey Maxson

Spain and the Protestant Reformation

The Spanish Inquisition and the War for Europe
Wayne H. Bowen

Royal Journeys in Early Modern Europe

Progresses, Palaces and Panache
Edited by Anthony Musson and J. P. D. Cooper

For more information about this series, please visit:

www.routledge.com/Routledge-Research-in-Early-Modern-
History/book-series/RREMH
Royal Journeys in Early
Modern Europe
Progresses, Palaces and
Panache

Edited by Anthony Musson and J. P. D.

Cooper
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Anthony Musson and J. P. D. Cooper;

individual chapters, the contributors

The right of Anthony Musson and J. P. D. Cooper to be identified as the authors of

the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Musson, Anthony, 1966– editor, writer of introduction. | Cooper, J. P. D.
(John P. D.), editor, author.
Title: Royal journeys in early modern Europe : progresses, palaces and panache /
edited by Anthony Musson and J.P.D. Cooper.
Description: New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge research in early
modern history | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022023955 (print) | LCCN 2022023956 (ebook) | ISBN
9781032255972 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032255989 (paperback) | ISBN
9781003284154 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Great Britain—Kings and rulers—Travel—History—16th century. |
France—Kings and rulers—Travel—History—16th century. | Henry VIII, King of
England, 1491–1547—Travel. | Field of Cloth of Gold, France, 1520. | Marriages
of royalty and nobility—Europe—History—16th century. | Great Britain—Court
and courtiers—History—16th century. | France—Court and courtiers—History—
16th century.
Classification: LCC DA28.1 .R6775 2023 (print) | LCC DA28.1 (ebook) | DDC
929.7/1—dc23/eng/20220623
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022023955
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022023956

ISBN: 978-1-032-25597-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-25598-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-28415-4 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003284154

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Figure 0.1 The Field of Cloth of Gold, Anglo-Netherlandish School,
c.1520–50. Oil on canvas, 168.9 × 347.3cm, twentieth-century Tudor-
style frame. RCIN 405794.
Source: Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021.
Contents

List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
List of Contributors

Reconstructing Royal Journeys in Early Modern Europe

anthony musson and j. p. d. cooper

Royal Itineraries

1 The Court on the Move: Problems and Perspectives

simon thurley

2 Progresses and Personal Monarchy in the Reign of Henry

VIII
j. p. d. cooper and keely hayes-davies

3 The French Kings on the Road: The Court’s Journeys in

Renaissance France
etienne faisant

The Logistics of Progresses

4 Preparing to Progress: The Great Wardrobe and the

Royal Progresses of Henry VIII
 sebastian edwards

5 On Display: The Role of Clothing and Livery on Henry

VIII’s Progresses
maria hayward

6 Monastic Lodgings: Housing the King Before and After

the Reformation
maurice howard

7 Anne of Cleves: Bound for England

valerie schutte

The Spectacle and Symbolism of Progresses

8 Travelling Grooms: A Royal Progress or A Wedding

Journey?
patrik pastrnak

9 ‘Pleasaunt Pastime’ or Drunken Diplomacy? Ladies and

Gentlewomen at the Field of Cloth of Gold
james taffe

10 Magnificence on the Move

timothy schroder

The Political Culture of Progresses

11 Justice on Progress in Early Tudor England

laura flannigan

12 Palaces, Progresses, Panache and Pictures: The Field of

Cloth of Gold and Tudor History Painting
brett dolman
13 Performing Power and Theatricalisation at the Field of
Cloth of Gold
lesley mickel

14 ‘These Princes were Mortal and Mutable’: Context and

Consequences of the Field of Cloth of Gold
glenn richardson

Index
Figures

0.1 The Field of Cloth of Gold, Anglo-Netherlandish School,

c.1520–50
1.1 Map showing Henry VIII’s progress of 1526
1.2 Map showing Queen Elizabeth I’s progress of 1575
3.1 Places where the presence of Francis I is attested in France
during his reign
3.2 Journey of the court from Paris to Fontainebleau (11–27 March
1546)
3.3 Antoine Caron, The Court Leaving the Château of Anet, c.1570
3.4 Journey of the court from Fontainebleau to Bordeaux (15
December 1529–8 June 1530)
3.5 Catherine de’ Medici on her litter, detail of The Court Leaving
the Château of Anet
4.1 King Henry VIII’s arrival at the Westminster Tournament of
1511
4.2 ‘Ralph Agas’ or Civitas Londinium map of London, 1561
4.3 The Family of Henry VII with St George and the Dragon,
c.1503–9
4.4 Portable writing desk, with the royal arms and decoration
attributed to Lucas Horenbout (c.1490–1544)
4.5 Marriage bed made for Duc Antoine de Lorraine and Renée de
Bourbon, 1515 shown in a digital reconstruction with its
documented upholstery of 1532
 4.6 Drawing of a ‘chariot’ from the book of drawings of Queen
Elizabeth I’s coronation in 1559, second half of the sixteenth
century
5.1 Henry VIII on horseback, a detail from The Field of Cloth of
Gold, Anglo-Netherlandish School, c.1520–50
6.1 Dartford Priory and cloister, with church, temp. Henry VIII
6.2 The fifteenth-century cloister of Lacock Abbey turned into the
courtyard house for Sir William Sharington after 1540, with a
new upper floor and mid-century windows
6.3 The surviving range of the Dartford Priory gatehouse at the
south-western end of the nuns’ cloister, built for Henry VIII
6.4 The north- and east-facing façades of the surviving fragment
of Dartford Priory
6.5 Details of the remains of Dartford Priory showing the use of
both ashlar and rubble from Barking Abbey and fragments of
flint
7.1 Queen Anne of Cleves, head and shoulders, in a rococo
medallion; below, putti seated next to a crown
8.1 The portrait of Maximilian II by William Scrots, c.1544
8.2 The portrait of Maximilian I by Joos van Cleve, c.1508–09
9.1 Ladies and gentlewomen in a tent, a detail from The Field of
Cloth of Gold, Anglo-Netherlandish School, c.1520–50
10.1 The cloth of gold tent, detail from The Field of Cloth of Gold,
Anglo-Netherlandish School, c.1520–50
10.2 Cope, c.1509, bequeathed by Henry VII to Westminster Abbey
(now at Stonyhurst College)
10.3 A royal tent with buffet of plate, from The Story of King David,
tapestry, Brussels, c.1520
10.4 The St Michael cup (Antwerp, 1532), gold, enamel, pearls and
precious stones
10.5 Tent design said to be for the Field of Cloth of Gold, c.1520
12.1 The Embarkation at Dover, Anglo-Netherlandish School,
c.1520–50
12.2 The Siege of Boulogne (1544), engraved by James Basire for
the Society of Antiquaries of London, and published in 1783
12.3 The Meeting of Henry VIII and Maximilian I, Anglo-
Netherlandish School, c.1513
12.4 The Battle of the Spurs, Anglo-Netherlandish School, c.1513
12.5 Proposal for a new harbour at Dover, attributed to Vincenzo
Vulpe, 1532
12.6 The Field of Cloth of Gold (detail, infra-red reflectography)
12.7 The Banquet of Abraham, engraved by Etienne Delaune,
c.1550–72
12.8 The Field of Cloth of Gold (detail, infra-red reflectography)
12.9 The Meeting of Charles V and the Bey of Tunis, Niccoló
dell’Abate, c.1546–50
13.1 Henry VIII and Francis I seemingly engaged in a wrestling
match, a detail in The Field of Cloth of Gold, Anglo-
Netherlandish School, c.1520–50
13.2 François Ier, Roi de France by the school of Jean Clouet
(1475/1485–1540)
14.1 Francis I, King of France, after Joos van Cleve, c.1530
14.2 Henry VIII by Joos van Cleve, c.1530–35
Abbreviations

BL The British Library, London

CSP Ven R. Brown et al. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers,
Venetian, 38 vols (London, 1864–90)
EHR English Historical Review
HMC Historical Manuscripts Commission
LP J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner, and R. H. Brodie (eds.), Letters and
Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 21
vols (1862–1910)
ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online)
OED Oxford English Dictionary (online)
REED Records of Early English Drama
TNA The National Archives, Kew
Contributors

J. P. D. Cooper (University of York)

Brett Dolman (Historic Royal Palaces)
Sebastian Edwards (Historic Royal Palaces)
Etienne Faisant (Université Paris Nanterre)
Laura Flannigan (St John’s College, Oxford)
Keely Hayes-Davies (University of York)
Maria Hayward (University of Southampton)
Maurice Howard (University of Sussex)
Lesley Mickel (University of the Highlands and Islands)
Anthony Musson (Historic Royal Palaces)
Patrik Pastrnak (Palacký University, Olomouc)
Glenn Richardson (St Mary’s University, Twickenham)
Timothy Schroder (Independent Scholar)
Valerie Schutte (Independent Scholar)
James Taffe (Durham University)
Simon Thurley (Institute of Historical Research/Gresham College)
Reconstructing Royal
Journeys in Early Modern
Europe
Anthony Musson and J. P. D. Cooper

DOI: 10.4324/9781003284154-1

In the early summer of 1522, 500 years before this book was
completed, King Henry VIII and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V
undertook a spectacular joint tour around the south of England. The
sight of early modern royalty leaving their palaces and travelling with
an extensive entourage through the countryside or approaching a
city would doubtless have been astonishing to behold and a
memorable experience for those who witnessed it in person. Such
royal journeys were captured in various contemporary drawings and
paintings, as well as in the dramatic accounts of observers, who
often describe events in elaborate and picturesque detail. Perhaps,
the most well-known artistic impression is that commemorating the
diplomatic meeting of the kings of England and France at the Field
of Cloth of Gold outside Calais in June 1520, a dual royal progress on
the grandest scale (see frontispiece).
The movement of the court according to season and circumstance
remained a fundamental feature of the Renaissance monarchies of
England, France and the Habsburg territories, articulating a common
diplomatic language of pageantry, religious ritual and the exchange
of gifts. But if the display and panache can look strikingly similar, the
purpose of royal journeys and progresses differed markedly between
the princely states of Europe. The government of sixteenth-century
England was increasingly focused on London and Westminster, with
a corresponding reduction in the range of royal tours by comparison
with those undertaken by later medieval kings; Henry VIII travelled
to York just once, Elizabeth I not at all, and neither contemplated
visiting Cornwall or Cheshire or Ireland, as their forebears had done.
The rulers of France and the Holy Roman Empire, by contrast, were
more fundamentally peripatetic. As Etienne Faisant points out in his
contribution to this volume, the English concept of a summer
‘progress’ is effectively untranslatable into French, even if the pursuit
of hunting was essential to both Francis I and Henry VIII. Such
distinctions of meaning made encounters like those of 1520 and
1522, when European monarchs travelled to meet each other or
toured in tandem, all the more significant as moments of political
and cultural exchange.
This book examines how early modern royal journeys and
progresses were perceived and defined, the purposes for which they
were undertaken and aspects of their logistical and material history.
Chapters are grouped into sections addressing royal itineraries in
England and France, the administrative and spatial dimensions of
progresses, questions of spectacle and symbolism and the political
culture of royal journeys in terms of theatricalisation memory and
the performance of justice. Recurring themes throughout the book
include the importance of gender as a category of analysis (the
exercise of queenship on progress, the masculinity implicit in the
royal hunt); elements of unpredictability and royal agency; the
challenges of reading source materials (financial accounts,
architecture, descriptions of ceremony and etiquette) to recover
what actually took place on royal journeys; and how historians of
different specialisms can establish a common set of approaches to a
diverse topic spanning multiple territories and cultures. While
defining a royal journey may seem like semantics, there were
perceptual and logistical differences (so John Cooper and Keely
Hayes-Davies argue) between what English contemporaries regarded
as a ‘removing’ and a ‘progress’, which go some way towards
explaining how the scope and intention of royal journeys were
changing during the first half of the sixteenth century. Aside from
the geographical extent of a progress, some difference is also
discernible (Maria Hayward observes) in what Henry VIII chose to
wear – a distinction which would have been immediately evident to
those involved but has been less noticed by historians. The precise
nature of a removing or progress determined how much baggage,
and what particular possessions, the king took with him. For
instance, the practice of royal piety continued on progress but took a
different form as the king’s riding chapel separated from the main
body of the chapel royal and temporarily took in local singers to
sustain the liturgy surrounding the monarch – a practice that
continues in Britain to this day.
Of what benefit were progresses to the monarch and the
monarchy? As the chapters collected here demonstrate, there could
be a spectrum of reasons for embarking on a royal journey, but they
normally comprised a mixture of business and pleasure and were
linked to particular seasons in the year. Sport and other leisure
pastimes (especially hunting) figured largely on the agenda, notably
for Henry VIII and Francis I but also for the Stuart kings. However,
royal journeys were undertaken for distinct ends in themselves,
whether for military purposes or as part of a diplomatic mission (to
prevent war), on pilgrimage to religious shrines, in light of
impending nuptials or to nip potential rebellion in the bud. They
could also offer a means of escape: from the stench of London or
unsavoury politics, even (in the case of marriage journeys) to start a
new life. While the royal party’s location and schedule were often
proclaimed in advance, the duration and venues on the king’s
itinerary were nevertheless subject to the mood and whims of the
royal person, be it a preference for following the deer, a decision to
meet a particular host or a sudden change of plan to avoid the
plague.
Royal journeys were extremely complex enterprises involving
hundreds, sometimes thousands of people. Organisation was thus
key to their implementation, requiring close communication between
the court and the localities on the venues to be visited, purveyance
of supplies, accommodation arrangements and performed activities
(whether hunting parties, liturgies, plays and tournaments or
dispensing royal justice). The logistics of ensuring that the monarch
got from A to B, safely and with everything that he and his
entourage needed, was dependent upon careful arrangements made
by officials to prepare for the king’s arrival (harbingers in England,
fourriers in France) and physically to transport the personnel of the
royal household, their servants and a vast accumulation of baggage.
As Sebastian Edwards demonstrates, to maintain levels of splendour
the king needed either to buy or to bring along many of his own
necessaries rather than rely wholly on his hosts, even when staying
with members of the nobility. The role of the royal Wardrobes is
remarkable in this respect, in the carriage and protection of precious
items as also in the repair and replacement of commonplace and
more valuable objects, from various grades of royal bed and ornate
tapestries to carved desks and delicate musical instruments.
Accounts of royal journeys, both contemporary and modern,
naturally tend to emphasise the power and the glory. For the royal
party itself, however, travel could be wearisome and dangerous, with
risk of disease or inclement weather – especially if voyaging by sea.
For brides in particular, the trials of the journey could be offset by
the opportunity to study and acclimatise to new roles, languages and
customs. As Valerie Schutte demonstrates, Anne of Cleves used her
protracted progress towards England to acquire knowledge of
English speech and card games enjoyed by her intended husband
Henry VIII and to learn a little of English politics. The logistics of a
royal progress themselves could have gendered aspects. On a bridal
journey, as James Taffe notes, a princess would be accompanied by
a whole court of women. She may nevertheless have lacked choice
or discretion as to who it was that accompanied her, it being a
matter for her parents or royal officials. This leads to important
questions, only some of which can currently be answered, about the
presence and role of women on progress: among the royal
entourage when queen consort Katherine of Aragon undertook a
religious pilgrimage, for instance, or attending Mary I when she
travelled to wed Philip of Spain at Winchester.
What made royal journeys special or exciting to observe and
experience? Progresses and royal tours were performances and at
times were actively choreographed, especially during formal entries
into cities. Their visual impact was increased by the procession of
household officers on horseback, accompanied by the royal baggage
carts (in Henry VIII’s case painted with a gilded livery of royal
shields, Garter, imperial crowns and supporters), wending their way
through the countryside and led by heraldic banners of St George.
The theatricality of a progress was further enhanced by the clothing
worn by participants, including brightly coloured liveries (usually
scarlet, for those meeting the king and queen) and chains of office.
Both king’s and queen’s costumes were carefully coordinated and
intended to show off their masculinity and femininity respectively,
while changes of clothes were similarly stage-managed. As Taffe
indicates, the attention to detail and extravagance in dressing the
queen and her ladies for a diplomatic encounter provided a
gendered form of competition, contrasting with the masculine
physical competition of wrestling and jousting. Clothing could also
form the substance of a wedding gift; as Patrik Pastrnak points out,
some continental brides controlled their prospective husband’s
appearance by sending him a series of different robes or forms of
attire each day as a prelude to their nuptials.
 Performance equally involved cultural display that was integral to a
Renaissance ruler’s self-fashioning. In addition to the sight of gold
gowns (as worn, for example, on a journey by Princess Mary, Henry
VIII’s sister), audiences at progress events witnessed a public
spectacle of opulence in the form of the king’s jewels and plate. As
Timothy Schroder explains, it was not just at banquets that such
treasures were revealed: chapel services and tournaments equally
provided stages for these arrays of gold and silver plate.
Considerable human ingenuity and labour was required to create
such magnificent displays. Portable palaces and tents erected as
temporary accommodation for the court provided sleeping quarters
for the household, but some also functioned as receiving areas for
the king. As Glenn Richardson contends, the wooden palace at
Guînes, with its monumental gateway and huge scallop-shell
pediment flanked by English roses, though purely a temporary
structure (later dismantled, stored and repurposed), was in itself an
exhibition of English bravura in the style and talent of the
workmanship on show. It was testimony, on the one hand, to its
own magnificence (analogous to the Crystal Palace of 1851) but also
in a broader vein a reflection of Henry VIII’s personal prestige and
the glory of England.
A performance requires an audience. It is important to consider to
what extent responses to royal journeys were also crafted, and what
the impact would have been on ordinary people who participated in
or simply observed the occasion. Many local people watched or took
part in civic entries. The journeys of royal brides and grooms
deliberately incorporated a number of staging points, so that
festivities could take place at various towns along the way. This
enabled public celebration of the dynastic union but also (by
including ordinary people in festivities) the engendering of goodwill
for the future. Civic entries also enabled the local elite or nobility to
position themselves within social hierarchies and to promote their
communal and individual causes with the crown. Royal journeys
were equally an auditory experience, a soundscape that included the
pealing of church bells and musicians playing as well as cheering
crowds. The procession of Anne of Cleves, for example, was
announced by the sound of trumpets and the firing of cannon.
Royal journeys were above all displays of kingship and queenship,
intended to enhance public perceptions of the monarch and to
project an image of power beyond the principal palaces such as
Hampton Court and Fontainebleau. It follows that a progress was
not simply about being seen; it was also about engaging with nobles
and courtiers in their home regions, as well as the civic and
ecclesiastical authorities who hosted or met with the royal party. In
this respect, both hunting and feasting were significant ways of
bringing people together, combining pleasure with business (‘soft
power’), elements of competition and physical prowess mixed in with
conversation and communal dining. As part of ‘functioning’
queenship both English and French consorts had formal roles on
state occasions but also provided informal support by their presence
at tournaments and hunting parties. As Taffe argues, the drinking
and carousing by their gentlewomen attendants at the 1520 joust
was very much part of the diplomatic endeavour.
If progresses were an opportunity to dispense and display good
kingship, courting regional elites and making monarchy temporarily
visible to the population outside the royal capital, one of the
significant implications of being on tour was that it brought
sovereign and people together face to face. This was not only true
through the hosting of the monarch by subjects in their own houses,
but also (as Laura Flannigan reveals) an opportunity for litigants
following the royal train to seek redress of grievances by presenting
a petition directly to the king. The public-facing and performative
nature of progresses, and the hosting of the sovereign by subjects
outside the domain of one of his own houses, raised issues not only
about security but to what extent conventional royal etiquette was
adapted, compromised or even subverted while on progress. The
daily rituals and ceremony normally surrounding monarchs could not
be maintained in the same degree and were often curtailed or
diminished. As Cooper and Hayes-Davies indicate, there were
deliberate attempts to provide a degree of privacy by mimicking the
separate king’s and queen’s royal apartments at the new wing of
Acton Court and elsewhere when Henry VIII was on tour. However,
as Richardson remarks, a ruler’s very presence beyond the confines
of a royal palace meant they were more accessible to their subjects;
to the nobles they visited or hunted with; and to the people more
generally with whom they could interact, notably through the
medium of gift-giving.
Royal progresses could be enlivened by unscripted moments. In
breach of protocol, the monarch occasionally deliberately evaded
foreign ambassadors, his own officials and the public gaze. Henry
VIII may have visited Bristol incognito in 1535, when plague
disrupted plans for more conventional celebrations; four years later
he went in disguise to view his new bride Anne of Cleves.
Undercover assignations, unscripted visits and concealed identities
were, as Lesley Mickel argues, a feature of the game of one-
upmanship enacted in private by Henry VIII and Francis I at the
Field of Cloth of Gold in June 1520, complementing the more public
diplomatic stance adopted by the two kings. Francis’s impromptu
visit, which found Henry VIII in a state of undress, was mirrored 18
years later when Francis came aboard Charles V’s moored galley
while he was taking a siesta. These reveal a hidden side to the
monarch’s travels: not only boldness in the breaking of protocol but
also unexpected intimacy and forcible gift-giving to achieve a
breakthrough in relations that ordinary diplomacy would not permit.
What did royal progresses achieve? This is a difficult question to
answer and, as Richardson points out, depends upon whether you
are looking at the short-or longer term. The ephemerality of such
ostentatious displays is symbolically brought home by the weather
wreaking havoc on French tents at the close of the Field of Cloth of
Gold. In addition to the social, political and diplomatic goals they
might have met, there were cultural achievements in the form of
paintings, textile and metalwork craftsmanship, literature, poetry and
music produced for progresses. That Henry VIII himself felt the need
to justify or validate his achievements on progress is, as Brett
Dolman argues, borne out by the spectacle of military and diplomatic
journeys commemorated in so-called history paintings, which formed
murals and decorations in the royal palaces. This self-conscious
chronicling in art was envisaged not just in the form of the Guînes
paintings (as they have come down to us) but on a more
extravagant scale, involving large teams of painters and commissions
from Netherlandish and Italian artists in particular.
Beyond their logistics and aesthetics, royal journeys had
ramifications for a nation’s economy and infrastructure as well as a
significant impact on the landscape and built environment. The
socioeconomic effect of this influx benefitted the regions by bringing
ordinary and high-status consumers and much-needed employment
to an area, albeit on a temporary basis. As Hayward points out, royal
servants could be sent out shopping while on progress, and quality
materials (such as silks and lace) were sometimes purchased to
supplement the royal wardrobe. Innkeepers and shopkeepers but
also those who provided services, from farriers and water boatmen
to laundresses and musicians, could profit from the presence of the
royal court. Enterprising merchants and traders (to say nothing of
pickpockets and conmen) may also have followed the household
train in the hope of taking advantage of the throng of people.
Repairs to royal residences, or the remodelling of aristocratic houses,
in advance of the court’s visit assisted stone masons, carpenters,
painters, glaziers and others involved in the crafts necessary to
adorn a country house. There was a knock-on effect on the national
highway system and waterways as arterial routes were improved, as
well as some amenity to towns visited where the civic authorities
ordered roads to be mended and houses painted. The royal visit to
York, in 1541, was particularly noteworthy in this respect. The influx
may have been good for some economically while the royal party
was there, but the sheer numbers may also have strained suppliers
of food, ale and other commodities. When the king altered his route
at the last minute, a community may have regretted the investment
made in advance of a royal visit. What the underclass of a town, the
homeless and poverty-stricken swept from the streets lest they
create trouble or a bad impression, thought of a royal visit can only
be guessed.
The monarch’s own building plans in advance of a progress and
subsequently had an enormous impact on the landscape. In
England, this was linked particularly to the insatiable appetite of
Henry VIII for new properties, but the preferences of later monarchs
who favoured new residences (or abandoned old ones, on grounds
of economy or taste) also need to be taken into consideration. The
extraordinary expansion in the number of royal houses during
Henry’s reign was partly down to the crown’s acquisition of forfeited
aristocratic estates but even more significantly a consequence of the
reallocation of land and franchisal rights resulting from the
dissolution of the monasteries. As Maurice Howard demonstrates,
while no former monastery became a ‘standing’ palace, nor was
anything long-term in their use necessarily envisaged, the king’s
architects and builders created temporary timber lodgings at
monastic sites and reconfigured former ecclesiastical buildings to
provide domestic living quarters that were comfortable and secure.
Both Howard’s and Thurley’s contributions prompt us to think
about the different purposes and logistics of royal palaces within a
monarch’s domain. The decline of castles as residences and the
removal of the monasteries as convenient accommodation affected
the route of a royal progress but so too did their expense and
inconvenience. It appears that the choice of venue was exceedingly
personal, in France as well as in England. While there might be some
logistical reasons for using a certain residence (such as its
convenient geography), the king’s decision could also verge on the
capricious. A greater willingness to visit the houses of courtiers, as
demonstrated by Henry VIII and taken further by his daughter
Elizabeth I, represented a simultaneous need to shift the burden of
expense away from the royal purse while making a visit appear a
positive thing.
Collectively, the chapters in this volume demonstrate how the
visibility of a ruler was paramount to personal monarchy, how royal
journeys affected the socioeconomic environment and interaction
with regional communities and how government and royal display
functioned on tour. The evidence and arguments presented here
underline the value of royal progresses and civic entries as offering a
window on state and society in early modern Europe, providing an
opportunity to consider not only what has been lost in terms of
cultural heritage but also what might have been if historical accident
had not intervened. As Thurley laments, Charles II’s death occurred
before a magnificent palace in Winchester could be constructed by
Christopher Wren while the great fire that destroyed Whitehall
Palace shifted the balance of royal accommodation in the English
capital.
Sharing the findings of research by scholars from both the
academic and professional curatorial worlds, this book also raises
important questions that have yet to be answered and highlight the
need for further investigation. Future work will need to continue the
careful examination of archival and printed sources that underpins
the chapters presented here, but also to embrace digital
technologies and explore what the close study of architecture,
archaeology and material culture can tell us about royal journeys.
Considering Tudor and Stuart royal progresses, there is a need to
evaluate which venues were reclaimed by the crown and courtiers
after the dissolution of the monasteries, how the architectural works
carried out mirrored what the king was doing elsewhere and the
extent to which these buildings with their extensive lands became
more accessible to communities. In a broader European context, this
book moreover pinpoints the need for greater understanding of the
political and performative roles played by queen’s consort and other
members of the royal family on progress, to evaluate contrasting
approaches to royal publicity and privacy during royal journeys and
to connect these and other questions to the political cultures of rival
Renaissance monarchies. Above all, this book emphasises the value
of a comparative approach within (and potentially beyond) early
modern European states and between the disciplinary studies of
history, ritual and performance, art and architecture and
archaeology.
Royal Itineraries
1 The Court on the Move
Problems and Perspectives
Simon Thurley

DOI: 10.4324/9781003284154-3

In February 1593, Queen Elizabeth I was in her new gallery at

Windsor Castle and could not decide what to do. Should she move
from the castle or not? One of the earl of Essex’s men, Anthony
Standen, described the chaotic scene caused by the royal indecision
as relayed to him by one of the carters who was loading up the
Wardrobe carts with the royal baggage:

Three times he had been at Windsor with his cart to carry away,
upon summons of a remove, some part of the stuff of her
majesty’s wardrobe; and when he had repaired there once,
twice and the third time, [and heard] that the remove held not,
clapping his hand to his thigh said these words ‘Now I see’ said
the carter, ‘that the queen is a woman as well as my wife’.
Which words being overheard by her majesty, who then stood
at a window, she said, ‘what villain is this’ and so sent him three
angels [gold coins] to stop his mouth.1

Over the last twenty years or so, historians have become acutely
aware of the value of studying the royal itinerary – again and again
it has proved to be a key tool in first understanding and then
explaining events. Scholars working on the Tudor and Stuart period
have come to realise that you can’t get anywhere without knowing
where the court was, who was with it and why they were there. This
applies to both the winter itinerant court and the court on formal
summer progress.
There are still gaps in our knowledge, and none of the Tudor or
Stuart royal itineraries have yet been published. There are two
scholarly itineraries of Henry VII’s reign, a quite old one for Henry
VIII’s and several incomplete but serviceable ones for Elizabeth. We
have Emily Cole’s superb scholarly itinerary for King James and the
present writer has compiled itineraries, mainly from published
sources, for Charles I and Henrietta Maria. Anna Keay has produced
a scholarly itinerary for Charles II, and for William and Mary there is
one from the newspapers. This is enough to give a general picture of
the movements of the court, but other than for Henry VII and James
I it is normally necessary to go to The National Archives to confirm
the precise movements of the court.2
This chapter takes a view of the court on the move over the
course of the Tudor and Stuart period from 1485 to 1703. The
purpose is twofold: first to catalogue the geographical and
architectural shifts of the monarchy, the skeleton of the royal
itinerary; and second, to draw out some of the themes that are
raised by a summary of a hundred years of royal movements
suggesting avenues of future research.
Apart from a couple of hours spent at Westminster Palace as a
teenager in 1470, when he became king Henry VII had never been
in an English royal palace, let alone lived in one. His schooling in the
ways of the English monarchy was at the hands of his wife and
mother, veterans of the court and palaces. His court, like that of his
predecessors, was peripatetic and in the fifteen years up to 1500,
Henry probably moved location around a thousand times. His most
favoured place was Westminster, easily, and his average length of
stay there was longer than anywhere else. Although there were lots
of short stays in the winter, he could be in residence for a month
before he had to move on to allow the palace to be cleaned. Then
came Sheen, where he would stay on average for around ten days,
rarely for longer. Third was Greenwich, and fourth was Windsor.
These residences formed the spine of his existence.
Outside London, Henry VII owned perhaps as many as eighteen
other residences. The largest and most splendid, like Woodstock and
Kenilworth, would be visited regularly; perhaps ten times in fifteen
years, staying for a total of 100–120 nights in each. Other royal
houses like Nottingham or Pontefract might only be visited a handful
of times for a few nights. Most of the summer progress was made
up of visits to the houses of courtiers, bishops and abbots.3
This pattern of royal movements hardly changed in the early years
of Henry VIII despite the acquisition of a small number of new
houses, such as New Hall in Essex. Henry’s itinerary, like his father’s,
was initially reliant on houses owned by bishops and abbots. After
1530, it was radically redrawn because of the acquisition of Wolsey’s
former houses, especially York Place and Hampton Court, but also,
gradually, of most of the monastic houses that he had used before
the dissolution. This meant that while, before 1530, around 65 per
cent of the moves Henry VIII made were to houses he owned, after
1530, the figure was 91 per cent.4
The annual round of Elizabeth’s life was not materially different
from her father’s. During the winter months the court was itinerant,
oscillating between the standing houses in the Thames valley,
although unlike her father she mainly travelled by coach between
them. Whitehall was her most popular residence followed, in order,
by Greenwich, Richmond and Hampton Court. If the queen was
staying at these, she would choose to reside either in the west or
the east; rarely would she travel from Hampton Court or Richmond
directly to Greenwich or vice versa. Visits to Hampton Court, which
were mainly autumnal, would often be combined with trips to
Windsor or Oatlands.
On twenty-three summers the queen made a progress. These, like
her father’s, typically started in July and ended in late September
lasting around fifty days. Her travels took her as far west as Bristol,
east to Norwich, and as far north as Staffordshire. Yet most of her
time was spent in the south, and in half of her progresses she barely
moved out of a fifty-mile radius of London.
Much of this was also the case with Henry VIII, but the key
difference was that after 1530, Henry, on progress, stayed in his
own houses most of the time; in contrast, Elizabeth preferred to stay
with her courtiers – around 80 per cent of nights on progress she
was somebody’s guest. So, for example, in 1561, the royal progress
into Essex, Suffolk and Hertfordshire lasted sixty-eight days, during
which Elizabeth visited eighteen private houses and two towns but
stayed only at four royal houses. Although there was a hard core of
Privy Councillors with whom she stayed regularly, in all some 420 of
her subjects hosted their monarch for a night or more over the
reign.5
Figure 1.1 Map showing Henry VIII’s progress of 1526, starting at
Windsor and proceeding through Surrey, Sussex,
Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and
Bedfordshire, in all a journey of over 300 miles.
 In 1603, Sir Robert Cecil, with Henry Howard and his nephew
Thomas, Lord Howard hoped that they could simply substitute one
monarch for another and everything would carry on under James VI
of Scotland more or less as before. But James was thirty-seven, and
had been a king all his life. It was far too late to change the way he
was. James was a profoundly different sort of monarch to his
predecessor. The magisterial dignity of Elizabeth, built on an
obsessively cultivated mystique and expressed in magnificent
surroundings and pervasive panegyric, had no attraction for James.
His style was homely, informal, anti-urban and private, a way of life
developed in his long years in Scotland.

Figure 1.2 Map showing Queen Elizabeth I’s progress of 1575, one of
her most ambitious summer progresses lasting some 139
days with 44 overnight locations.
 This had a huge impact on the king’s houses, his itinerary and way
of life. He didn’t like Kent, where he thought the hunting poor, and
the former Tudor houses at Dartford, Canterbury and Charing were
given away. The large house at Woking was also granted away,
presumably as he already had several big houses in Surrey. His most
acquisitive period were the four years between 1605 and 1609,
when he bought houses in Newmarket and Royston, the mansions of
Theobalds, and Holdenby, and a house in Thetford.
In 1605, in a letter specifying the requirements for a new hunting
lodge at Ampthill in Bedfordshire, James I drew a distinction
between palaces of necessity, where he was accompanied by only
those who were necessary for his immediate needs, and palaces of
state where the full court would attend. This distinction between
state and necessity existed informally under Henry VIII, who would
visit smaller houses for hunting and pleasure with his riding
household. Such an arrangement did not appeal to Elizabeth, but
James I revived it both architecturally and institutionally. The new
houses at Royston, Newmarket and Thetford were houses of
necessity while Whitehall, Hampton Court and Theobalds were
houses of state for pomp and gravity. Royston and Newmarket were
a new kind of royal residence. Here James would stay for long
periods transacting state affairs as necessary, but there was no state
ceremonial; they revolved round the informality of royal life.6
While James loathed London, Charles I found it magnetic.
Whitehall was by far and away his most favoured, and frequently
visited, residence. In contrast to his father, Charles would move to
Whitehall whenever he had the opportunity and the winter court
season was extended at both ends to become a four- or (in the
1630s) five-month continuous residence. Like his father, during the
summer months, he was there only for business, but then most of
the aristocracy and the whole of fashionable society were in the
country.
 Charles made a summer progress every year of his reign up to
1640. Since 1603, of course, the pattern of Stuart itinerance was
Britain and not just England. Yet his itinerary was more restricted
and conservative than James I’s, visiting a relatively small number of
places on multiple occasions and these mostly close to London. It
was again hunting that drove his summer’s activities and took him to
both his own parks and those of his courtiers.
The logistics of the Caroline progresses were no less formidable
than those of the Tudors: the king travelled with some 400 carts,
guarded by 100 yeomen of the guard and accompanied by more
than 1,000 household officers from kitchen scullions to the noblest
aristocrats. On an average two-month progress there would be ten
to fifteen moves, and on the two extended progresses to Scotland in
1633 and 1639, there were three times that many.7
Protector Cromwell was entirely London-focussed and all the
provincial palaces and hunting grounds were disposed of. Apart from
Hampton Court and Whitehall, only Windsor Castle was in an even
vaguely usable state in 1660. But in the first five years of the
Restoration, this did not matter as Charles II barely left Whitehall. In
fact, his was the longest more-or-less continuous stay at Whitehall of
any monarch ever.
What changed things was the plague. In June 1665, there was a
general remove to Hampton Court and, from then on until February
1666, the court was on the hoof, strategically relocating to avoid
infection. The seven months that Charles spent on the road
highlighted the fact that, other than Hampton Court and Windsor,
the crown no longer had any habitable domestic residences outside
London. The following spring, determined to rectify this, Charles
made a trip eastward to Saffron Walden and purchased Audley End,
a house that had been designed from the first to host royalty, with
matching king’s and queen’s sides round an inner court.
Like many a spur-of-the-moment purchase, Audley End did not live
up to reality. The court visited a handful of times but not at all
towards the end of the reign. In the end, like his grandfather, he
bought a site in nearby Newmarket on which he built a new house.
Unlike its predecessor, that had deliberately been a house of
necessity, Charles’s new house had much greater architectural
presence and even some modest grandeur.8
The second factor that forced Charles II to redraw the royal
itinerary was the exclusion crisis. In 1673, after the passing of the
Test Act and the acknowledgement of the Duke of York’s Catholic
conversion, Charles decided to move the court out of London, which
was racked with political tension and unrest. They went to Windsor
where the king resolved to make the castle his usual summer
residence, commissioning Hugh May to undertake a thoroughgoing
modernisation. Completed for the summer of 1678, the new Windsor
was a residence entirely devoted to pleasure – when the council
met, it did so at Hampton Court, as there was no council chamber at
Windsor.
Although the medieval curtain walls of Windsor kept the court
secure from the disorder of London, rocked by the Popish Plot, it
could not replace Whitehall. The political turmoil of the three
exclusion parliaments, culminating in its meeting in Oxford,
convinced Charles to move the court even further from the capital
and it settled, in 1682, in Winchester. There he ordered Sir
Christopher Wren to build a vast new residence: not just a hunting
lodge but a fully equipped royal palace. It was the first entirely new
palace built since the time of Henry VIII, and it encapsulated all the
refinements in palace planning that had taken place over the past
150 years. The king’s death and James II’s disinclination to finish the
palace robbed history of the opportunity to understand how it would
have changed the royal itinerary and possibly remapped the political
geography of England. Winchester was potentially an alternative
capital, with the new palace invested with the history and
infrastructure necessary for rule.9
 James II was entirely focussed on Whitehall as the base for his
crusade to bring about the re-conversion of England to Roman
Catholicism. But his daughter Mary, and her Dutch husband William,
came to the throne, like James I, with firmly developed personal
tastes and preferences. Arriving in London, William disliked Whitehall
and was eager get out to the countryside as quickly as possible.
Orders were given for the court to remove from Whitehall to
Hampton Court.
The decision was met with horror. Keeping the court out of London
was bad for the city’s economy and dreadful for the sanity of his
ministers, all of whom lived in or near Westminster. So, the king was
persuaded to look for somewhere closer to Whitehall and quickly
settled on the second earl of Nottingham’s house in Kensington. Just
a month after the coronation of William and Mary, the Office of
Works was busy rebuilding two royal houses for the joint monarchs.
It was in this way that King William, within a matter of months of
his accession, again redrew the pattern of royal habitation. Whitehall
was now to be principally the centre of the national bureaucracy
while Kensington was to be William and Mary’s normal town
residence and Hampton Court the palace of state. This arrangement
replicated their pattern of existence in the Dutch Republic and was
also much more like that of James I than that of Elizabeth I or
Charles II.10 The new pattern, like James I’s, might have been a
temporary recasting of royal movements if it had not been for the
fact that in 1698, a massive fire destroyed the state apartments at
Whitehall, leaving the central offices of state camping in the former
recreation complex in St James’s Park.
The loss of Whitehall as the architectural and geographical nexus
between monarch, court and ministers must have been felt by
Queen Anne, who had seen first-hand how Charles II had bound the
sinews of state together in the chambers and galleries of the great
palace. But there was no way that she could afford to rebuild it.
Anne used Hampton Court and Windsor as her country retreats, and
in London she preferred the newer and more private metropolitan
palace at Kensington to the official seat of power at St James’s. In
short, St James’s and Hampton Court were for business, Kensington
and Windsor for pleasure.11
Just over a century of court life in England saw a variety of
personal preferences and a range of pragmatic solutions to practical
and political problems, each of which affected the royal itinerary. The
summary presented here is one-dimensional because, apart from the
reign of Elizabeth, there were the complementary and overlapping
itineraries of members of the royal family who had their own houses
and estates. The changes in preference and in geography were as
significant for them as for the sovereign. We should also bear in
mind the decline of the formal progress: Charles II went on a few
summer tours early in his reign, William III went on one and Anne
not at all.
Yet the picture is clear enough to begin to ask what can be learnt
from all this. What are some of the issues that need to be
confronted in understanding the court on the move? The first must
be the economic impact. Contemporaries were keen to complain
about royal presence in their vicinity. Elizabeth I, who spent more
than 40 per cent of the nights in her reign in Surrey, received a
complaint from its residents that though it was the ‘least and most
barren’ of counties ‘it is charged with continual removes and carriage
of coals, wood and other provisions to the court … also by my lord
treasurer for the repair of her majesties houses’. In the following
reign, the residents of Royston tied a note to the neck of one of
James I’s hunting dogs saying ‘please his majesty to go back to
London, for else the country will be undone; all our provision is
spent already, and we are not able to entertain him any longer’.12
It is certainly true that royal prerogatives of cart-taking,
purveyance and impressment and the activities of the harbingers
could be vexatious and costly. Yet the scorecard was not so one-
sided: the Corporation of Winchester bribed Charles II to come to
their city and build his palace with lavish gifts of land, materials and
plate, much to the dismay of the people of Newmarket who lost the
economic benefits of the court staying. In the 1640s, there was
despair amongst the luxury trades in Westminster as the court left
London.13
It has been estimated that the expenditure of the court increased
by £1,000 during progress time. Benefits to craftspeople and
shopkeepers are worth a more detailed interrogation. The
innkeepers, blacksmiths and brewers were major beneficiaries, as
were suppliers of luxury goods, firewood and fodder. Questions
about the growth and economic development of towns in the orbit of
the royal itinerary are interesting to consider.
More attention has been given to the political implications of
itinerancy: the court did not travel alone, and the huge entourage
frequently contained many of the Privy Council, various
administrators and the occasional ambassador. The overlapping
itineraries of royal ministers have been studied for Henry VIII’s reign
but not for later reigns; they are crucial to the anatomy of power
and the aristocratic geography of England. The earl of Arlington built
his country house at Euston to be close to Charles II at Newmarket.
A few years later leading aristocrats bought and built town houses in
Windsor. Town house purchases and country house building both in
their location and format were profoundly influenced by the royal
itinerary.14
Government continued with the court on the move and
instructions had to be issued, leading to the development of the post
system between the king and Whitehall and between Whitehall and
the south coast and Scotland. For Charles I’s progress in 1636, 150
horses were requisitioned for the royal messengers alone. This is
one example of how, in considering the development of departments
of state and administration, the peripatetic nature of the executive is
an important force.15
 The landscape legacy of royal movements is enormous. The
infrastructure for hunting was immense: emparkment still defines
much of the countryside today. Hare warrens at Royston and
Newmarket kept royal coursing supplied, and rabbit warrens supplied
royal tables. Restrictions on local people were fiercely policed, and
those living round Royston were told to flatten their plough furrows
to make it easier for the royal horses.
During Elizabeth’s reign there was a revolution in royal transport
with the widespread introduction of carriages which led to a drastic
improvement in the road network around London and soon further
afield. Winchester was only a possibility for Charles II because of the
good road and excellent stabling in the city. Regular royal routes
created arteries of rapid travel for others generating corridors of
access and economic opportunity. A town like Guildford, a royal
centre, and a staging post to Portsmouth, benefitted enormously
from the frequent passage of the court.16 The hundreds of carts
required by the court on the move were initially pulled by oxen, but
when replaced by the horse put a huge strain on equine
infrastructure, the studs and agriculture. On Edward VI’s first and
only progress half his entourage had to be sent home after the first
week because there was not enough fodder to sustain the 1,000
horses he had brought with him.17
Obviously, construction projects also had a huge impact, especially
during periods of new build. We know quite a bit about the
development of the brick and tile trade in Surrey, but domestic glass
manufacture and lead production, both crucial after the 1580s, were
also stimulated by royal building and fashions. Certain towns
flourished due to the building trades. The growth of Reigate, for
instance, must have owed much to the stone quarries so essential to
the construction of the royal houses.18
Neither progress time or itinerancy was exclusively rural, and the
mobile court had a big impact on towns. The progress of 1634
included a visit to Leicester. The town gates were repainted, while
householders were required to paint the outside of their houses and
pave the streets in front. The roads were laid with sand and gravel
and the streets were strewn with rushes. New liveries were made for
the mayor and aldermen and golden bowls with pictures of the king
and queen were fashioned as gifts. The earl of Huntingdon, the Lord
Lieutenant, was sent ahead to ensure that St Martin’s Church was
properly arranged for the Sunday when the king would attend divine
service.19 Impacts both short-lived and more sustained were
stimulated by royal visits.
All this is to say that the monarch and court moving round the
country had important, deep-seated and long-lasting implications.
Whether they were staying in their own residences or in those of
their subjects, the sovereign presence made impacts, some of which
were long-lasting and important. Many of these are yet barely
investigated, but importantly they demonstrate that the study of
royal itineraries is not just an antiquarian pastime; it is a very
important tool in understanding economy, landscape, politics,
architecture and urban development of England.

Notes

1. T. Birch, Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 2 vols (London, 1754),

vol. I, 154–5; E. Goldring, F. Eales, E. Clarke and J. E. Archer (eds.), J.
Nichols’s The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth I: A New
Edition of the Early Modern Sources, 5 vols (Oxford, 2014), vol. IV, 210.
2. Henry VII’s itinerary is in L. L. Ford, ‘Conciliar Politics and Administration in
the Reign of Henry VII’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of St Andrews
(2001), 205–83; Elizabeth of York’s itinerary, compiled from her Privy Purse
expenses, is in A. N. Okerlund, Elizabeth of York (Basingstoke, 2009), 188;
Henry VIII’s itinerary is in TNA OBS1/1419 and is analysed in detail in S. J.
Thurley, ‘English Royal Palaces, 1450–1550’, unpublished PhD thesis,
University of London, 2 vols (1991), vol. I, 317–73, vol. II, Fig. 123; the only
published itinerary of Elizabeth I is in E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Transcriber’s Notes:
On page 10, finger-nail has been changed to
finger nail.
On page 15, packing-case has been changed to
packing case.
On page 31, “top if” has been changed to “top
of”.
On page 70, “was not be” has been changed to
“was not to be”.
On page 73, “severity that” has been changed to
“severity than”.
On page 75, once side has been changed to one
side.
On page 111, none-such has been changed to
non-such.
On pages 154 and 194, Jane has been changed
to June.
On page 189, shop-door has been changed to
shop door.
On page 258, that has been changed to than.
On page 319, being has been changed to been.
On page 321, Jane Eliot has been changed to
Jane Austen.
Minor, quiet corrections have been made to
punctuation, to conform to common usage.
All other hyphenation, variant and archaic
spellings and accented dialogue have been retained.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE VAN
ROON ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.