(Vol. iii., p. 477.)
The statement of Hume, that Elizabeth and Mary were created Princesses
of Wales, rests, I am disposed to think, on most insufficient authority;
and I am surprised that so illustrious an author should have made an
assertion on such slender grounds, which carries on the face of it a
manifest absurdity, and which was afterwards retracted by the very
author from whom he borrowed it.
Hume's authority is evidently Burnet's _History of the Reformation_;
(indeed, in some editions your correspondent G. would have seen Burnet
referred to) in which are the following passages (vol. i. p. 71., Oxford
edition, 1829):
"The King, being out of hopes of more children, declared his
daughter (Mary) Princess of Wales, and sent her to Ludlow to hold
her court there, and projected divers matches for her."
Again, p. 271.:
"Elizabeth was soon after declared Princess of Wales; though
lawyers thought that against law, for she was only heir
presumptive, but not apparent, to the crown, since a son coming
after he must be preferred. Yet the king would justify what he had
done in his marriage with all possible respect; and having before
declared the Lady Mary Princess of Wales, he did now the same in
favour of the Lady Elizabeth."
Hume's statement is taken almost verbatim from this last passage of
Burnet, who, however, it will be observed, does not say "created," but
"declared" Princess of Wales; the distinction between which is obvious.
He was evidently not aware that Burnet afterwards corrected this
statement in an Appendix, entitled, "Some Mistakes in the first Portion
of this History communicated to me by Mr. William Fulman, Rector of
Hampton Meysey, in Gloucestershire." In this is the following note, in
correction of the passages I have quoted (Burn. _Hist. Ref._, vol. iv.
p. 578.):
"Here and in several other places it is supposed that the next
heir apparent of the crown was Prince of Wales. The heir apparent
of the crown is indeed prince, but not, strictly speaking, of
Wales, unless he has it given him by creation; and it is said that
there is nothing on record to prove that any of Henry's children
were ever created Prince of Wales. There are indeed some hints of
the Lady Mary's being styled Princess of Wales; for when a family
was appointed for her, 1525, Veysey, bishop of Exeter, her tutor,
was made president of Wales. She also is said to have kept her
house at Ludlow; and Leland says, that Tekenhill, a house in those
parts, built for Prince Arthur, was prepared for her. And Thomas
Linacre dedicates his _Rudiments of Grammar_ to her, by the title
of Princess of Cornwall and Wales."
This is one of the many instances of the inaccuracy, carelessness, and
(where his religious or political prejudices were not concerned)
credulity of Burnet. Whatever he found written in any previous
historian, unless it militated against his preconceived opinions, he
received as true, without considering whether the writer was entitled to
credit, and had good means of gaining information. Now, neither Hall,
Holinshed, Polydore Virgil, nor (I think) Cardinal Pole, contemporary
writers, say anything about Mary or Elizabeth being Princesses of Wales.
The only writer I am acquainted with who does say any such thing,
previous to Burnet, and whose authority I am therefore compelled to
suppose the latter relied on, when he made the statement which he
afterwards contradicted, is Pollini, an obscure Italian Dominican, who
wrote a work entitled _L'Historia Ecclesiastica della Rivoluzion
d'Inghilterra; Racolta da Gravissimi Scrittori non meno di quella
Nazione, che dell' altri, da F. Girolamo Pollini dell' ordine de
Predicatori, della Provincio de Toscana_: Roma, Facciotti, 1594. In book
i. chapter ii. page 7. of this author is the following statement, which
I translate, speaking of the Princess Mary:
"As the rightful heir of the throne she was declared by Henry, her
father, Princess of Wales, which is the ordinary title borne by
the first-born of the king; since the administration and
government of this province is allowed to no other, except to that
son or daughter of the king, to whom, by hereditary right, on the
death of the king the government of the realm falls.... In the
same way that the first-born of the French king is called the
Dauphin, so the first-born of the English king is called Prince of
Britain, or of Wales, which is a province of that large island,
lying to the west, and containing four bishoprics. Which Mary,
with the dignity and title of Princess, assisted by a most
illustrious senate, and accompanied by a splendid establishment,
administered with much prudence," &c.
Pollini's history is, as may be supposed, of very little historical
value; and one feels surprised that, on a point like the present, Burnet
should have allowed himself to be misled by him. But still more
remarkable, in my opinion, is the use Miss Strickland makes of this
author. After several times giving him as her authority at the foot of
the page, by the name of _Pollino_, but without giving the least
information as to the name of his work, or who he was, she has the
following note relating to the passage I have quoted (_Lives of the
Queens of England_, vol. v. p. 156.):
"The Italian then carefully explains that the Princes of Wales
were in the same position, in regard to the English crown, as the
Dauphins were to that of France. Pollino must have had good
documentary evidence, since he describes Mary's council and court,
which he calls a senate, exactly as if the Privy Council books had
been open to him. _He says four bishops were attached to this
court._"
It seems to one a singular mode of proving that Pollini must have had
good documentary evidence, by saying that he speaks exactly and
positively; and I would ask what _good_ documentary evidence would a
Florentine friar be likely to have, who certainly never was in England,
and in all probability never far from his convent? But it is the
statement about the bishops that I wish more particularly to allude to,
as I can find _no statement to that effect in Pollini_, and can only
suppose that Miss Strickland misunderstood the passage (quoted above)
where he says the province of Wales contains four bishoprics.
I think I have now shown that Hume's statement rests on no sufficient
grounds as to the authority from whence he derived it. But there is yet
another reason against it, which is this: it would be necessary, before
Elizabeth was created Princess of Wales, that Mary should be deprived of
it; and this could only be done by a special act of parliament. But we
find no act of such a nature passed in the reign of Henry VIII. There
are other reasons also against it; but having, I think, said enough to
show the want of any foundation for the assertion, I shall not trouble
you any further.