THE FATE OF THE SURVIVORS
The Reforming Leaders, who had so flattered Lady Jane Grey when they
saw a chance of her becoming Queen, do not seem to have felt much
concern at her death. In a letter of 3rd April 1554, addressed to
Bullinger, Peter Martyr says, “Jane, who was formerly Queen, conducted
herself at her execution with the greatest fortitude and godliness”;
Burcher, writing on 3rd March 1554 to Bullinger, casually remarks, “I
have heard, too, that the Queen has beheaded his [Suffolk’s] daughter
Jane, together with her husband; that Jane, I mean, who was proclaimed
Queen”; lastly, a less well-known Reformer named Thomas Lever wrote to
Bullinger in the April of 1554, that Jane had been beheaded.[317] As to
the Imperial Ambassadors, Montmorency Marnix, Jehan Schefer, and Simon
Renard, they were one and all jubilant over the death of Lady Jane, her
father, and Northumberland. There was not much sympathy ever expressed
for Lady Jane among the people. No doubt her execution was the main
topic of chatter in all the taverns of London, as well in the little
darksome dens, down by the wharves, where seafaring men congregated,
as in the luxurious hostelries in Cheapside, the Strand, Holborn, and
Westminster, where rich gossips forgathered; but of demonstrative
sympathy there was none. Yet the erection on that fateful Monday of
some fifty gibbets intended for the hanging of the Wyatt rebels did
impress the hardened populace with a sense of horror and anxiety.
It marked the beginning of the reaction against Mary, which set in
violently a few months later on with the burnings in Smithfield, to
blast her name for ever by the fearful epithet of--“Bloody.”
Let us give a parting glance to the remaining actors in this tragedy.
Jane’s father, Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk, was brought to trial for
high treason in Westminster Hall on 17th February. The indictment was
for levying war against the Queen, adhering to Sir Thomas Wyatt, in
order to depose the Queen and set the Crown on his daughter Jane; and
having opposed the Earl of Huntingdon when the latter was in command
of the Queen’s forces.[318] The Duke’s defence was, that he had not
attempted to proclaim Jane during his expedition of January 1554, and
had only gone out to rouse the people against the Spaniards, which,
as a peer of the Realm, he claimed he was entitled to do. As to the
accusation of opposing Huntingdon, he answered that he did not know
that nobleman was acting under the Queen’s orders: he also took refuge
behind his brother Thomas, who, he said, had advised him to go into
the country, where he would be safe among his tenants, whereas if he
remained in London he would be sent to the Tower again. This feeble
defence was not accepted; and Henry Fitzallan, Lord Maltravers (Lord
Arundel), the Queen’s Lord Steward, who had brought the record into
court, pronounced sentence of death, as a traitor, on that Henry Grey
who had so greatly injured his sister, Lady Katherine Fitzallan, his
first and neglected wife, from whom he was never legally divorced. He
had his hour of revenge at last! The Duke was “much confounded at his
condemnation”; contemporaries inform us that when he left the Tower he
went “stoutly and cheerfully enough,” but when he re-entered Traitor’s
Gate “his countenance was heavy and pensive.” He had not to wait long
for his _coup de grâce_. On the following Friday (23rd February) he
was brought out of the Tower, between nine and ten in the morning,
to be executed on Tower Hill. He had some trouble with Dr. Weston,
the Roman Catholic priest Mary had appointed to accompany him to the
scaffold. When they arrived at its foot, the Duke refused to listen
to him, and even went so far as to prevent his ascending the steps.
Dr. Weston, however, insisted in the Queen’s name; whereupon, with an
expressive gesture of resignation, Suffolk submitted to his presence,
but the attempt to change his religious convictions failed utterly. Dr.
Weston told him in a loud voice that the Queen forgave him, to which
the Duke replied, “God save her Grace!” and the people murmured, and
some said they hoped he (Weston) would have a like pardon. The Duke
at last made a brief speech, saying simply, “Masters, I have offended
the Queen, and her laws, and thereby I am justly condemned to die, and
am willing to die, desiring all men to be obedient; and I pray God
that this my death may be an example to all men, beseeching you all
to bear me witness that I die in the faith of Christ, trusting to be
saved by His blood only, and by no other (_sic_) trumpery: the which
died for me, and for all men that truly repent and steadfastly trust
in Him. And I do repent, desiring you all to pray to God for me, that
when ye see my breath depart from me, you will pray to God that He
may receive my soul.”[319] After this, kneeling and raising his hands
in supplication to Heaven, he repeated the _Miserere_--the very Psalm
his daughter had said under like circumstances a week or so before.
Then, rising, he continued--also as she had done--saying, “Into Thy
hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.” Just as he was about to make his
final preparations for death a very human incident occurred. A man
to whom he was deeply in debt stood up and asked him, “Who will now
pay me my money?” “Well,” quoth the Duke, “ask not me now, but go and
see my officers, who will, I doubt not, satisfy you.” On this the man
departed, saying, “God save your soul, Sir!” Suffolk now removed his
cap and neck-cloth, and to the headsman’s usual appeal for forgiveness,
replied, “God forgive thee, and I do; and when thou dost thine office,
I pray thee, do it quickly, and God have mercy on thee.”[320] Lastly,
having tied a handkerchief over his eyes, he knelt down and recited
the Lord’s Prayer aloud, and appealing for mercy to the Throne of
Grace, Henry Grey laid his head on the block, and on the stroke of the
headsman’s axe expired. Suffolk’s body was laid to rest in St. Peter’s
Chapel; but his head, for some reason which has never been explained,
was sent to the Church of the Holy Trinity in the Minories.[321] Here
it was embalmed after a fashion, by being placed in a small vault by
the altar, in the dust of oakwood, which, as it contains a quantity of
tannin, is a strong preservative; and when unearthed about fifty years
ago, it was sufficiently perfect for the mark of a blow made by the axe
above the actual place of severance (rather low on the neck), to be
still visible. Sir George Scharf was greatly struck by the resemblance
between this head and the portrait of Suffolk now at Hatfield and the
copy of it in the National Portrait Gallery. The author has himself
inspected the relic closely, and recognised the resemblance to the
portrait: the exceedingly arched eyebrows and the rather weak chin are
identical: three of the teeth are perfect, the eyes are closed, the
mouth open, the head beardless and bald.
Lady Jane’s uncle, Lord Thomas Grey, shared the fate of his brother of
Suffolk and of Lord Leonard Grey. At the time of the Duke’s rising, he
attempted to escape to the Continent by way of Wales; but he got no
farther than the borders of the Principality, where he was captured,
according to a contemporary, “through his great mishap and folly of his
man who had forgot his cap case with money behind him in his chamber
one morning at his inn, and, coming for it again, upon examination what
he should be, it was mistrusted that his master should be some such
man as he was indeed, and so he was stopped, taken, and brought up to
London.” Lord Thomas, however, took no very prominent part either in
the rebellion in Warwickshire, or in the previous attempt to establish
Lady Jane on the throne; and it is difficult to understand why he
should have been sacrificed, especially when Lord John Grey, who had
been caught as it were red-handed in hiding with the Duke of Suffolk
at Ashley, was released after two trials.[322] However, the mention of
the Lord Thomas by Suffolk at his trial was distinctly damaging to him;
perhaps also Mary had some personal grudge against him, or his unloving
sister-in-law, the Duchess of Suffolk, who, despite her husband’s
action, was much in favour with Mary, may have prejudiced the Queen
against him. According to Noailles, Thomas Grey frankly avowed his
determination to see Courtney, Earl of Devonshire, King, or to be King
himself. He did not explain how this was to be achieved; but added,
“If I am not King, I’ll be hanged.” He was beheaded instead! This
reference to Courtney gives support to Suffolk’s admission, that the
Wyatt rebellion and his own expedition had for their immediate object
the proclamation of Elizabeth as Queen. Curiously enough, Lord Thomas
Grey, unlike his relatives, always remained a Catholic, and is said to
have asked for a confessor before he died. After being brought to trial
at Westminster on 9th March 1554, as Machyn says: “The xxviij day of
April was beheaded on Tower hill, between ix and x of the clock before
noon, my lord Thomas Gray, the Duke of ‘Suffoke-Dassett[’s]’ brother,
and buried at Allalow’s [All Hallows’], Barkyne, and the head ...” (the
sentence is unfinished).[323]
[Illustration: THE LADY FRANCIS BRANDON, DUCHESS OF SUFFOLK, AND HER
SECOND HUSBAND, ADRIAN STOKES, ESQ.
PROBABLY BY CORVINUS. PROPERTY OF COL. WYNN FINCH]
The Duchess of Suffolk, Lady Jane’s strange and untender mother, did
not, as might have been expected, even in those unfeeling times, go
into retirement after the bloody deaths of her daughter, son-in-law,
husband, and brother-in-law, but within a fortnight, and on the very
day that Lord Thomas Grey was arraigned (9th March 1554, not, as some
writers say, the day he was executed), she married her late husband’s
Groom of the Chambers, a red-haired lad of middle-class origin, fifteen
years her junior, one Mr. Adrian Stokes. She received a reminder of
“the dear departed” on this her wedding-day, in the shape of a demand
to deliver, “unto the Lord-Admiral the Parliamentary robes, lately
belonging to the Duke her husband; or, if she had them not, to let
the Lord-Admiral understand where they remain, to the end he may send
for the same.” This widow of Ephesus was not in the least disturbed
by the message, and after returning the paraphernalia in question,
gaily proceeded with her nuptial preparations! To account for so
extraordinary and apparently heartless a proceeding, we must remember
the position in which the Lady Frances now found herself. She realised
that unless she was married, and that speedily, to some one much
beneath her station, she might be proposed by the Protestant party as
one of its candidates for the succession, and her life and tranquillity
be thus endangered. Her marriage with one who was little better than a
menial[324] rendered this impossible; and besides (she was a Tudor),
she may have been really in love with her red-haired Mr. Stokes. That
Queen Mary did not resent the match is evident, for throughout her
reign the Lady Frances occupied a towering position at Court, with
precedence of all other peeresses, sometimes even of Princess Elizabeth
herself. Her daughters, the Ladies Katherine and Mary Grey, were
appointed Maids-of-Honour to the Queen who had so lately signed the
death-warrants of their father, sister, brother-in-law, and uncles,
and seem to have been very much attached to their mistress. They
probably convinced themselves that the recent tragedies had been purely
political, and not the least domestic or personal. The lives of these
two young ladies were not a jot happier than that of their sister; but
this was due to Queen Elizabeth, who played with them both much as a
cat plays with a mouse, and literally worried them into early graves.
Lady Frances and her youthful husband had their portraits taken the
very year of their marriage, both in one panel; the picture was lately
in the possession of Colonel Wynn Finch. The Duchess appears as a
buxom, puffy-looking dame of thirty-six,--the age given on the margin
of the picture,--whilst her sheepish-looking, ginger-headed husband
is put down as twenty-one. He is represented in a superb costume of
black velvet, edged with ermine and sparkling with jewels. The lady
wears black satin cut somewhat after the fashion of the year 1830.
Her garment is edged with ermine, and she wears two wedding-rings on
the fourth finger of her fat hand, and several handsome chains and
carcanets about her short neck. A close examination of this picture
reveals the extraordinary breadth of the Duchess’s face. Divested of
her feminine head-dress, and with a very little “make up,” she might
easily be the very image of her uncle, King Henry VIII. Lady Jane’s
mother lived happily enough with Mr. Stokes, to whom she bore a
daughter so soon after her marriage--a little under nine months--that
if she had visited her husband in the Tower (which she did not) the
question of her paternity might have been raised. This child, baptized
Elizabeth, died the day it was born. The Lady Frances herself died in
October 1559, leaving most of her fortune--by this time considerably
reduced--to her husband, and very little to her two surviving
daughters. She was buried in Westminster Abbey in great pomp on 5th
December 1559. Elizabeth, out “of the great affection she bore the
Duchess and because of her kinship,” ordered that the Royal Arms should
be borne at her funeral, which was attended by Garter-King-at-Arms and
by Clarencieux. Her monument, still in existence, occupies the exact
site of the shrine of St. Edmund in the chapel of that saint, and
is a fine specimen of the early and best period of Elizabethan art.
The inscription is in old English, and, modernised, runs as follows:
“Here lieth the Lady Frances, Duchess of Suffolk, daughter to Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and Mary the French Queen; first wife to
Henry, Duke of Suffolk, and after to Adrian Stokes, Esq.” This is
followed by a few lines of high-flown panegyric in Latin. After the
death of his Duchess, Mr. Stokes obtained a new lease of twenty-one
years of “her Highness’s manor of Beaumanor,” in Leicestershire. About
1571 he was returned as M.P. for Leicestershire, and took as his second
wife Anne, relict of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton. Mr. Adrian Stokes died
on 30th November 1586, leaving his brother William as his heir.[325]
The widow of the once all-powerful Duke of Northumberland spent some
months with her daughter, Lady Mary Sidney, endeavouring to restore her
shattered health and to recover some shreds of the property taken from
her at the time of her husband’s condemnation. It was mainly through
the instrumentality of Don Diego de Mendoza, or “Damondesay,” as she
styles him, whose imprudent conduct had brought such misfortune on
her luckless son, that Philip II was led to solicit the restoration
of a considerable part of the Duchess’s fortune. She also obtained
permission to inhabit the empty Manor House at Chelsea, where she
endeavoured to collect some of the magnificent furniture which had once
adorned the royal mansion, Durham House, in the Strand, recovering,
amongst other things, a set of green curtains shot with gold thread
and certain carved chairs and tables. But peace and shelter, even
combined with a measure of comfort and independence, availed not to
restore her broken health, and on 22nd January 1555 the famous Duke
of Northumberland’s widow died broken-hearted at Chelsea Manor in her
forty-sixth year. Her will is one of the most curious extant. After
declaring it written entirely in her own hand, without the advice of
one learned in the law, she bequeaths to “the Lord Diegoe Damondesay,
that is beyond the sea, the littell book clock that hath the moon in
it, etc.,” and her dial, “the one leaf of it the almanac and the other
side, the Golden Number in the middle.” What would we not give for a
glimpse of this curious little clock or dial? To Sir Henry Sidney she
leaves the gold and green hangings in the gallery at Chelsea; to her
daughter, Mary Sidney, her gown of black barred velvet, furred with
sable; to her daughter, Katherine Hastings, a gown of purple velvet,
and a summer gown; to the Duchess of Alva, her green parrot, “having
nothing else worthy of her”; to Elizabeth, wife of Lord Cobham, a gown
of black barred velvet, furred with lizards. The document ends with the
following quaint directions: “My will is earnestly and effectually,
that little solemnities be made for me, for I had ever have a thousand
folds my debts to be paid, and the poor given unto, than any pomp to
be showed upon my wretched carcase; therefore to the worms will I go,
as I have afore written in all points, as you will answer it afore God;
and you break any one jot of it, your will hereafter may chance be to
as well broken.... After I am departed from this world, let me be wound
up in a sheet, and put into a coffin of wood, and so laid in the ground
with such funerals as pertaineth to the burial of a corpse. I will
at my year’s mind (_i.e._ anniversary of her death) have such divine
service as my executors shall think meet, with the whole arms of father
and mother upon the stone graven; nor in any wise to let me be opened
after I am dead. I have not loved to be very bold afore women, much
more would I be loth to come into the hands of any living man, be he
physician or surgeon.” She was buried in Chelsea Parish Church on 1st
February 1555, two heralds attending the funeral, at which there was a
brilliant display of escutcheons and banners, etc. Her tomb is against
the south wall of the church, and is under a Gothic canopy, supported
by pillars of mosaic. It bears a long inscription, together with
effigies of the Duchess and her five daughters, kneeling: a similar
plate with her eight sons on it has been torn off.[326]
The Duchess of Somerset, the Protector’s widow, followed the example
of my Lady of Suffolk, and ensured her personal tranquillity by
contracting a _mésalliance_ with Mr. Newdigate, son of that Mr.
Newdigate to whom, as recorded in an early chapter of this work,
Lord Latimer, Katherine Parr’s second husband, used to let his house
furnished. The Duchess had been released from the Tower with other
notable prisoners when Mary first entered its precincts. She was much
beloved by that Queen, who used to address her as “my good Nan,” and
this despite the fact that the Duchess was an ardent Protestant. She
died in her ninetieth year, and was laid to rest under a monument which
is reckoned as one of the finest in Westminster Abbey.
Katherine, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, Charles Brandon’s fourth and
last wife and Lady Frances’ stepmother, had followed the prevailing
custom and married her secretary, Mr. Bertie or Bartie, “a gentleman
of fair family and little means.” Her Grace was one of the first
Englishwomen of noble birth to embrace the principles of the
Reformation, and greatly incensed Queen Mary by doing so. This lady’s
mother, Lady Willoughby d’Eresby, was Queen Katherine’s closest friend,
and a staunch Catholic, a fact that probably increased the Queen’s
resentment against the Duchess and her second spouse; and a hint that
he might be arrested on a charge of heresy sent Mr. Bertie flying to
Flanders. He had not the kindness to inform his wife of his intended
flight, and she, feeling herself forsaken and in danger in London,
escaped one foggy morning from her house in the Barbican and followed
in the wake of the truant, whom she found at Wesel, where their famous
son, Peregrine, the brave Lord Willoughby, was born. After Elizabeth’s
accession, the Duchess returned to London with her children by Mr.
Bertie and that gentleman himself. She was favourably received by the
Queen, who saddled her, however, with many unwelcome obligations among
them the custody of her step-granddaughters, the Ladies Katherine and
Mary Grey. The Duchess, who was on friendly terms with Cecil, kept
up a constant correspondence with him; and even after the lapse of
nearly five hundred years, her humorous descriptions of people and
things raise not a smile only, but a hearty laugh--she was, in fact,
considered the wittiest woman of her day. Katherine, Dowager Duchess of
Suffolk, died late in the reign of Elizabeth.
Queen Jane’s Secretary, Sir John Cheke, was arrested on 27th or 28th
July 1553 (Strype says, “together with the Duke of Suffolk”) and
committed to the Tower. There he remained a close prisoner. On 12th or
13th August an indictment as a traitor was made out against him, which
brought forth a private letter to him from Cranmer, with whom he was
on intimate terms. In this epistle Cheke is described as “one who had
been none of the great doers in this matter [_i.e._ of the accession
of Jane] against her [Queen Mary].” In 1554 Sir John Cheke was, after
his estates had been confiscated, released from the Tower and given a
licence by the Queen to travel abroad,[327] whereupon he made no delay
in getting to Switzerland and thence to Italy.[328]
APPENDIX
ICONOGRAPHY OF LADY JANE GREY AND HER FAMILY, ETC.
The painted portraits of Lady Jane Grey are exceedingly scarce, and
probably not a single one of them is authentic; on the other hand, very
early and almost contemporary engraved portraits are fairly numerous.
The oldest of these latter is one by E. V. Wyngaerde. It bears a
certain resemblance to the portrait of her grandfather, the Duke of
Suffolk, by Jacobus Corvinus, in the possession of Sir Frederick Cook
at Richmond. Although Wyngaerde engraved it in the middle part of the
reign of Elizabeth, when many persons were still living, the Queen
herself included, who had seen Jane Grey, and who could have set him
right, he attributes the original to Hans Holbein, who died in London
of the plague, according to recent discovery, in 1543, that is to say,
when Jane was but six years old, a fact which renders it impossible for
him to have painted any of the numerous portraits attributed to him of
Edward VI as a lad in his teens, Edward being born in the same year
and month as Lady Jane. The portrait of Jane Grey from which Wyngaerde
engraved is evidently by some other artist who painted in the style
of Holbein, presumably one of his pupils. It must be remembered that
in our own time people are constantly attributing to Gainsborough and
Reynolds portraits they could not have painted, so in the seventeenth
century it was the fashion to attribute every portrait of the early
part of the preceding century to Holbein, whose great name was
remembered, whilst those of his lesser contemporaries were forgotten.
(2) In the Earl of Stamford and Warrington’s collection there is a very
ancient portrait of Lady Jane Grey, engraved by Lodge. It is not well
painted, but is none the less extremely interesting. The features are
small and delicate. The costume is rich but simple, and the pretty
neckerchief is fastened at the bosom by a bunch of flowers.
(3) Another frequently engraved portrait of Jane Grey, also attributed
to Holbein, and engraved in George Howard’s _Life of Lady Jane Grey_,
was for many years in the possession of the late Mr. Wenman Martin, of
Upper Seymour Street. The costume is exceedingly rich.
(4) Probably on account of its excessive prettiness, the celebrated
picture called “Jane Grey,” in the possession of Lord Spencer, at
Althorpe, is likely to remain the most popular likeness of Lady Jane.
It represents a sweet-looking young woman of about sixteen, seated
by a window, reading an illuminated missal. By her side, on a table,
stands a richly chiselled goblet or chalice. The dress is of ruby
velvet, made very plain, and with hanging sleeves of a darker material.
It was engraved in the last century by Dibden, as the frontispiece of
the _Decameron_, a work which certainly has no association whatever
with the poor little “Nine Days’ Queen.” By its general neatness and
vivid colouring, this picture may very reasonably be attributed to
Luca Penni, an Italian and pupil of Raphael, who painted a good deal
in England under Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Mary. There is a very
singular fact connected with this Althorpe picture. The noble Milanese
family of Trevulzio has possessed for many generations an almost
identical picture which has always been known as a portrait of Lady
Jane Grey. A photograph of this picture is in my hands, and certainly
the resemblance between it and the Althorpe picture is remarkable. Lord
Spencer has most kindly afforded me some interesting details connected
with his own picture. “It has been,” he said, “for many generations in
our family, and can be traced as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey as far
back as the seventeenth century.” Some years ago, Lord Spencer took
it down from its place in his gallery, and found on the back of it an
inscription in the handwriting of his grandmother, Lavinia, Countess
Spencer, to the effect that the picture was a portrait of the Lady
Jane Grey, and that what she had written was copied from a much older
inscription, which had been nearly obliterated by time. Lord Spencer
many years ago saw at Milan the picture above-mentioned, and was struck
by its likeness to his own, of which it might have been a copy. Sir
George Scharf, although an authority on portraiture, was apt at times
to have prejudices and to cast doubt on those historical portraits
which have been handed down as authentic for many generations; and
his singular ignorance or rather disregard of the value of costume in
determining the period of a picture often led him into ludicrous errors
of judgment. His reason for discarding the Althorpe portrait of Lady
Jane Grey appears rather unreasonable. He objected to it because a tall
standing goblet or chalice figures conspicuously on the table beside
the lady, such a chalice being, according to him, an attribute of St.
Mary Magdalen, and so, too, is the skull, which is not present in this
picture. However, an extraordinary number of Tudor portraits represent
great ladies with a similar goblet standing beside them. These gold and
silver chalices or cups were a common gift from royal god-fathers and
mothers in Tudor times, and were frequently stolen from the churches.
Lady Jane, we know from the inventories of her effects, had several in
her possession.
(5) An exceedingly beautiful portrait, said to represent Lady Jane
Grey, is at Madresfield, Lord Beauchamp’s seat in Worcestershire. The
face bears a resemblance to that in the engraving by Wyngaerde, and
the costume is undoubtedly one that Lady Jane might have worn, and
consists of a rich velvet gown, cut square at the neck and filled in
with soft lawn and lace. Her head-dress is very elaborate and graceful.
Her expression is sweet and noble. This picture is wrongly ascribed to
Lucas Van Heere, and is more likely to have been painted by Streete.
Independently of its historical interest, it is a beautiful picture.
On the other hand, its companion, supposed to represent Lord Guildford
Dudley, is absolutely wrong. It represents a tall young gentleman with
strongly-marked features and a vapid expression. It is the costume
that gives the lie to the tradition that it is the portrait of Lady
Jane’s husband, for the dress, with its voluminous ruff, is of the
mid-Elizabethan period, and at least twenty-five years later than the
death of the unfortunate young gentleman it is said to represent; but,
on the other hand, the little velvet cap, with its two plumes, is
certainly of the time of Edward VI. The ruff may have been added at a
later date by an ignorant restorer.
(6) There is a curious portrait, probably of Lady Jane Grey, in the
possession of J. Knight, Esq., of Chawton House, Alton.
(7) A very remarkable portrait, called “Jane Grey,” was formerly in the
possession of Colonel Elliot; said to be now in one of the Colleges
at Oxford. It was, however, engraved in 1830, and has lately been
reproduced in colour by Messrs. Graves of Pall Mall. The face is that
of an older person than Lady Jane, but the features are small and
pretty, the expression being rather defiant and world-wise. She wears
a turban-shaped hat of velvet, studded with immense pearls, which was
certainly not in fashion in the days of Edward VI, or even in the
last years of Henry VIII. Here again is an instance of costume giving
the lie to tradition. Lady Jane could no more have worn such a hat and
costume than a lady in 1909 could be painted as wearing the crinoline
and spoon-shaped bonnet of mid-Victorian days.
(8) The small semi-miniature in the National Portrait Gallery is
wrongly attributed to Lucas Van Heere, who was born in the year of
Jane’s execution, and could therefore neither have painted the portrait
in question nor any one of the numerous likenesses of Queen Mary
ascribed to him, since he was only five years of age when that Queen
died.
(9) A small portrait called “Jane Grey” is in the possession of Lord
Hastings at Melton Constable, Norfolk.
(10) “A splendid portrait of Jane Grey” was exhibited at the Derby
Art Exhibition in 1841--mentioned by Howard. It belonged to a Mr.
Harrington, who inherited it from two ancient ladies, the Misses Gray
of Derby, in the possession of whose family this picture had been for
many generations.
(11) There is a sweetly pretty contemporary Tudor portrait, reputed to
be that of Lady Jane Grey, in the possession of Colonel Horace Walpole,
at Heckfield Place, Hants.
The Wyngaerde engraving has been frequently reproduced. In the Print
Room at the British Museum there are no less than six variations of it.
There are also engravings, more or less apocryphal, of Lady Jane by
G. W. Krauss and G. C. Schmidt, 1782.
Engraved and fanciful portraits:--
Jane Grey, by G. Smerton, 1824.
Lady Jane Grey, by G. Buckland, 1776.
Lady Jane Grey, by Sherwin.
Lady Jane Grey presenting her prayer-book to Sir Thomas Brydges.
Engraved by Wells. 1786.
Lady Jane Grey as Queen. By J. P. Simons.
Lady Jane Grey “From a contemporary miniature at Strawberry Hill,” by
Vertue. (The original is now in the National Portrait Gallery.)
Lady Jane Grey. From a portrait in the possession of the Marquis of
Buckingham. No name of engraver. She wears a velvet gown open at the
throat to display a double chain with pendant cross. On table, large
gold chalice.
Paul Delaroche has painted two famous historical pictures, representing
events in the last days of Lady Jane Grey’s life--her farewell to
Guildford and her execution. They have been frequently engraved.
PORTRAITS OF LADY JANE’S MOTHER, FATHER, AND GRANDFATHER
“Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk, and her second husband, Adrian
Stokes” (dated 1554). Small half-lengths of the Duchess of Suffolk
on the left, and Adrian Stokes on the right. She wears a black dress
with tags and jewels, gold-edged ruffs at neck and wrists, black
jewelled hoods, two necklaces of pearls, one with pendants, right hand
resting on cushion and holding glove, left holding ring. He wears a
light-coloured embroidered doublet, black fur-lined surcoat slashed and
with tags, ruffs at neck and wrists edged with pink, chain round neck,
right hand on hip, left holding gloves, sword at his side. Above her
head, _Ætatis_ xxxvi: above his, _Ætatis_ xxi. Dated MDLIV. Panel, 19½
× 27 in. Probably by Corvinus. This picture was engraved by Vertue.
Colonel Wynn Finch.
Frances, Marchioness of Dorset. A superb Holbein drawing. H.M. the
King, at Windsor.
Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk. Miniature. Was lent to the Tudor
Exhibition by Lord Willoughby d’Eresby.
There are fine portraits of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, in the
National Portrait Gallery, and in the possession of Sir Frederick Cook.
There is also a fine portrait by Corvinus of Henry Grey, Marquis of
Dorset, in the National Portrait Gallery, and another in the possession
of G. P. Boyce, Esq.
A portrait of Katherine, Baroness Willoughby d’Eresby, and Duchess
of Suffolk, is in the possession of her descendant, Lord Willoughby
d’Eresby.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LADY JANE GREY
In literature, Lady Jane Grey has been a popular heroine. She figures
in: _The Tower of London_, by Harrison Ainsworth. _Jane Grey_ (French
novel), by Alphonse Brot. _Lady Jane Grey_, by Philip Sidney. The life
story of Lady Jane is told in _Jeanne Grey_, by Mdme. de Genlis. _The
Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary_. _Lives_ of Lady Jane Grey, by
Howard, Agnes Strickland (in _Tudor and Stuart Princesses_), and Dr.
Harris Nicholas.
There is a fine elegy of Lady Jane Grey by Sir Thomas Chaloner, one of
the best Latin writers of the reign of Elizabeth, the original of which
is preserved in the Bodleian Library. It is contained in the collection
called the Illustrium, Jan. II. 68. p. 33.
“Jana luit patriam profuso sanguine culpam,
Vivere Phœnicis digna puella dies.
Illa suit Phœnix, merito dicenda manebat;
Ore placens Venerio, Palladis arte placens.
Culta fuit, formosa fuit: divina movebat
Sœpé viros facies, sœpé loquela viros.
Vidisset faciem? porterat procus improbus un:
Audisset cultæ verba? modestus era,” etc.
Lady Jane Grey’s tragic fate has been several times dramatised:--_John
Dudley, Duke of Northumberland_, a tragedy, by Scriptor Ignotus.
London, 1686. _Lady Jane Grey_, by J. W. Ross, 1882.
Independently of Rowe’s tragedy, _Lady Jane Grey_, there is the German
tragedy of Von Sommer, entitled _Johanna Grey_; and _Jane Grey_, an
opera-epilogue, acted 25th February, 1723, for the benefit of Mrs.
Sterling at Dublin.
The literary works attributed to Lady Jane Grey are:--
1. Four Latin epistles--three to Bullinger, and one to Lady Katherine
Grey. The originals of the first three are preserved at Zurich, the
other is in the King’s Library, British Museum.
2. Her conference with Feckenham (probably apocryphal), although quoted
by such early writers as Foxe and Florio.
3. A letter to Harding (doubtful).
4. A prayer for her own use in prison.
5. Four Latin verses scratched on her prison walls with a pin. These
will be found on p. 336.
6. Her speech on the scaffold.
7. _The Complaint of a Sinner._
8. _The Duty of a Christian._
9. The annotations in the famous prayer-book.
10. A fragment of a letter has been recently found, and is printed in
volume vii of the State Papers; Edward VI. Domestic Series. Addenda.
Hollingshead and Sir Richard Baker state “that she hath wrotten other
things,” but they do not tell us where they are to be found. Several of
her letters, notably the one to Sudeley and the famous letter to Queen
Mary, are not extant in her own handwriting.
Lady Jane’s fine autograph signature figures on a number of
contemporary documents. It is nothing like so elaborate as that of
Elizabeth, but it is easy to see that the two Princesses received
lessons in Italian caligraphy from the same teacher, probably
Castiglione.
INDEX
Ab Ulmis or Ullmer, John, Reformer, 24, 169;
letters of, 179-80, 185, 186 f.n.
Anne Askew, birth and marriage, 61;
her preaching, 61;
arrest and recantation, 62;
second trial and condemnation, 63;
racked, 64 and f.n.;
is burnt alive, 66; 72 note
Anne of Cleves, Queen, 37 and f.n., 38, 39, 59, 312, 313
Arundel, Earl of, 7, 128, 251, 261, 275;
arrests Northumberland, 279-80, 283; 284;
proclaims Mary, 285 and f.n.; 295, 305, 349
Ascham, Roger, 127, 172;
his story of Lady Jane, 172-3;
his letter to Lady Jane, 175-7; 259; 264-5;
death, 358 f.n.
Ashley, Mrs., Princess Elizabeth’s attendant, 106;
on Elizabeth’s behaviour with Sudeley, 136 et seq.; 161 f.n.;
162, 163
Aske, Robert, 32
Audley, Lady, 184 and f.n.
Aylmer, John, 67, 169, 170;
letter to Bullinger, 178;
death, 358 f.n.
Baynard’s Castle, 284 and f.n.
Bradgate, Old Manor of, and Park, (Lady Jane’s birthplace), 1-4;
life at, in the olden times, 19-23; 223
Brandon, Charles, Duke of Suffolk (Lady Jane’s grandfather), 4;
origin of, 7;
matrimonial peculiarities, marries Lady Mortimer, 7-11;
marries Mary Tudor, Queen of France, 8-9;
goes to France with Henry VIII, 54, 192;
death, etc., 57; 94;
portraits of, 363
Brandon, Lady Eleanor, 10, 12, 108, 109, 114
Brandon, Lady Frances. (_See_ Frances Brandon, Lady)
Browne, Sir Anthony, 39, 97 and f.n., 101, 106, 163, 216, 338
Brydges, Sir John, Lieutenant of the Tower, 253, 283, 290,
310, 311, 340
Brydges, Sir Thomas, 253, 290, 316, 335, 337;
at Lady Jane’s execution, 340, 341, 343
Carew, Sir Gawen, 84, 86, 88
Cecil, William, Lord Burghley, 166-7 f.n., 204, 206, 210;
knighted, 212 f.n.; 237, 240, 241, 244, 257 and f.n., 259-60;
his treachery, 277 and f.n., 278; 285 and f.n.; 296
Charles V, Emperor, 56, 263;
supports Northumberland, 265, 267 and f.n.; 268;
abandons Northumberland, 296, 297, 298 f.n.;
urges Lady Jane’s execution, 314, 315 f.n.; 316; 330
Cheke, Dr., afterwards Sir John, 127 and f.n.;
knighted, 212 f.n.; 241;
acts as Queen Jane’s Secretary of State, 257 f.n., 258-9;
imprisoned, 281 f.n.;
writes to Lord Oxford and leaves the Tower, 284;
imprisonment, recantation, and death, 358 and f.n.
Chelsea, Manor House, 137 f.n., 237, 355
Council, the Privy, letters of, to the Commissioners in Brussels,
262 f.n., 266-7;
to Princess Mary, 268-9, 295;
obtains leave to depart from the Tower, 284;
proclaims Mary Queen, 285;
attends St. Paul’s, 285;
retires to Westminster, 294;
its submission to Mary, 295-6; 312;
its treachery to Queen Jane considered, 316 and f.n., 320
Coverdale, Dr. Miles, as Jane’s tutor, 119;
at Katherine Parr’s funeral, 145, 146
Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 54, 65-6, 103-4, 107,
108, 131, 156, 204, 206;
connection with the Reformers, 227;
his interview with Edward VI about the succession, 240-1;
his conduct towards Lady Jane, 286-7;
the original charge against, 287 f.n.;
indictment against, 299;
at Edward VI’s funeral, 300;
trial of, 316, 317, 319, 320; 321
“Devise” for the succession drawn up, 238-9;
Jane named in, 240;
Council object to, 240-3;
signed, 243;
text of, 254-5
Diego de Mendoza, Don, 232, 262 and f.n., 263;
accepts Guildford Dudley as King, 263-4;
probably influenced by Northumberland and the Suffolks, 264; 265;
355
Dissolution of the Monasteries, disastrous effect of, 25-6, 195
Dorset, Henry Grey, Marquess of, afterwards Duke of Suffolk (Lady
Jane’s father), 4-5;
marriage of, 11; 14; 94;
negotiations with Sharington and Sudeley about parting with Lady
Jane, 115, 116; 128; 130;
welcomes Reformers, 134;
correspondence with Sudeley about Jane, 149-50;
has fresh negotiations with Sudeley and Sharington for the
purchase of Lady Jane, nature of the affair, 152;
also negotiations with Somerset, 153;
conclusion of negotiations with Sudeley, the money paid, 154-5;
supports Sudeley, 160; 169;
goes to live in London, 179;
letter to Bullinger, 179;
created Duke of Suffolk, 179, 212 f.n.;
goes to Sheen, 223; 224 and f.n.;
social intercourse with the Dudleys, 228-9;
coerces Jane into marrying Guildford Dudley, 230;
gives the Council leave to depart from the Tower, 284;
is ordered to give up the Tower, signs Mary’s proclamation, 287;
announces her downfall to Queen Jane, 288;
his subsequent movements, 289-90;
raises revolt against Mary, his defeat and betrayal, 322-3, 323
f.n.;
the injury done to Queen Jane’s cause by this revolt, 323-4, 323
f.n., 324 f.n., 326, 330; 334;
trial and defence, 349;
execution, 349-50;
burial, 350-1;
his head, 351 and f.n., 352 f.n.;
portrait of, 363
Dorset, Margaret, Dowager Lady, 5-6 and f.n.
Dorsets, residences of the, in London, 23-4;
friendship of the Howards for, 94, 95
Dudley, Lord Ambrose, 228, 273, 275;
imprisoned, 281 f.n., 292; 298; 316;
trial of, 317, 319; 356 f.n.
Dudley, Sir Andrew, 225 and f.n., 233, 271, 273, 281 f.n.;
condemnation and recantation, 304 and f.n.
Dudley, Edmund, 8, 190-1
Dudley, Guildford. (_See_ Guildford Dudley)
Dudley, Henry, 281 f.n., 284 f.n., 298, 316;
trial of, 317; 319; 356 f.n.
Dudley, John. (_See_ Northumberland, Duke of)
Dudley, Lord Robert, 23, 209, 229, 275, 292, 315, 320, 324, 356 f.n.
Durham House, 234, 236, 299, 252
Edward VI, King, birth, 14 and f.n., 52;
never Prince of Wales, 101 f.n.; 103 and f.n.;
learns of his father’s death, 106;
his movements at that time, 106 f.n.;
enters London, 107, 111;
writes to Katherine Parr on her marriage, 123-4;
infancy, 126;
education, 126-8;
little intercourse with his sisters, 128;
Coronation procession, 130-1;
Coronation, 132 and f.n.;
has to hear innumerable sermons, 156-7;
state of his health, is deformed and deaf, 157;
prefers Sudeley to Somerset, 157;
at Hampton Court, 204-6, 206 f.n.; 214;
becomes weaker, 222;
does not attend Jane’s wedding, but makes gifts, 234-5;
his scheme for the succession, 238 et seq.;
names Jane Grey as his successor, 240;
declares his will to the Council, 241, 242-3;
his death, 245 and f.n.;
rumours of his having been poisoned by Northumberland, 246-7, 247
f.n.;
supernatural visitations, 248;
funeral of, 300;
Masses for, 300 and f.n., 301;
his Great Seal, 302-3 f.n.
Elizabeth, Princess, 39, 52, 94, 106, 121;
joins Sudeley, 122;
her appearance at fifteen, 136;
her behaviour with Sudeley, 137 et seq., 162-3;
is sent away from Sudeley, 139;
letter to Katherine Parr, 139;
her feelings towards Sudeley, 140; 157; 167; 178;
omitted from the succession, 239;
declared illegitimate, 257-8;
dislikes Lady Jane, 257;
enters London, 298; 312
“Ellen,” Mrs., Lady Jane’s nurse, 17, 291, 340, 341, 343
England, state of, under Somerset’s protectorate, 195-6 et seq.,
212;
immorality in, 196-7;
slavery in, 198-9
Feckenham, Dr., afterwards Abbot, 321 and f.n.;
announces hour of her death to Lady Jane, 328 and f.n.;
appearance of, 329; 340; 341; 343; 358 f.n.
Fitzpatrick, Barnaby, 127 and f.n.
Frances Brandon, Lady, Marchioness of Dorset, afterwards Duchess of
Suffolk (Lady Jane’s mother), 4, 9;
birth and baptism, 11;
marries Henry Grey, Marquis of Dorset, 11;
her appearance, children, etc., 12; 35; 94; 108; 114; 132;
letter to Sudeley, 150-1; 154;
falls ill, 181; 183;
proposes a marriage between Lord Hertford and Jane, 210;
pays homage to Lady Jane as Queen, 251;
enters the Tower with Queen Jane, 253-4; 282; 289;
marries Adrian Stokes, 352;
portrait of, 353, 363;
appearance, gives birth to a child, dies, her monument, 354
Gage, Sir John, Constable of the Tower, 298, 299 f.n., 316, 334, 340
Gardiner, Bishop, 39, 54, 58;
endeavours to overthrow Katherine Parr, 67;
Henry’s anger against, 69 and f.n.;
omitted from Henry VIII’s will, 69, 103, 110; 70; 105; 108; 109;
111; 112; 114; 156; 211; 304; 325;
urges Jane’s execution, 332
Gates, Sir Harry, condemnation and recantation, 304
Gates, Sir John, 87, 241, 249, 275, 279 f.n., 280, 281 f.n.;
condemnation, 304;
execution, 307-8
“Geraldine, Fair,” birth and antecedents, 96 and f.n.;
her beauty, connection with the Earl of Surrey, marriages, etc.,
97;
funeral, 98; 163
Greys of Groby, family of, 3-4
Grey, Thomas, Marquis of Dorset, 1, 4
Grey, Lord Thomas, Lady Jane’s uncle, 183;
signs the “Devise,” 243;
captured and executed, 351-2
Grey, Lady Jane, “the Nine Days’ Queen,” birth, 14;
christening, 15 and f.n.;
babyhood and childhood, 16-18 et seq.; 24; 50; 51;
Lady Jane and Prince Edward, 55, 72, 120, 125-6, 128, 247-8; 62;
67; 68; 70; 94; 97; 108; 109;
effect of Henry VIII’s will on her political position, 115;
goes to Seymour Place, 117;
her life there, 118-9;
proposal of marrying her to the Earl of Hertford, 119, 132, 153,
210, 230;
life at Chelsea, 140;
at Sudeley Castle, 141 et seq.;
as chief mourner at Katherine Parr’s funeral, 145;
goes back to Bradgate, 151;
letter to Lord Sudeley, 154;
returns to Sudeley’s charge at Hanworth, 155;
goes again to Seymour Place, 157;
returns to Bradgate, 166;
her education, 169 et seq.;
letter to Bullinger, 170-2;
Ascham’s story of, 172-3;
ill-treated by her parents, 173, 230 and f.n., 303;
her knowledge of languages, 174;
appears at Court, 181, 182;
her travels in 1551-2, 183-4;
illness, 185;
makes presents to Bullinger’s wife, 186;
movements in 1552-4, 186, 223 f.n.;
story of, 189;
doubtful legitimacy, 197, 224-5;
coerced into marrying Guildford Dudley, 230;
preparations for the wedding, 230;
date of wedding, 232 and f.n.;
special attire for, 233 and f.n.;
details of the wedding, 233-4, 235;
her dress at her wedding, 235 and f.n.;
her own account of her interview with the Duchess of
Northumberland, 236;
goes to Chelsea and falls ill, 237;
nominated successor to Edward VI, 240;
goes to Sion House, 250-1;
is informed of Edward VI’s will, 251;
homage done her as Queen, 252;
her distress thereat, 252;
proceeds to the Tower, 252;
her entry into the Tower as Queen, her appearance, 253;
proclaimed Queen, 256;
signs documents, 259, 267, 276, 283;
dines in State, 260;
scene with the Duchess of Northumberland, refuses to make
Guildford Dudley King, 260;
receives the Regalia, 261, 270;
her Royal Seal, 266;
falls ill, 268;
list of her property sent to the Tower, 271-3;
makes appointments, 276;
collapse of her cause, 281, 283;
strange incident, sends for Lord Winchester, 282;
Suffolk announces her downfall to her, abandons the Throne, 288;
deserted in the Tower, 289;
her imprisonment, 291, etc.;
relinquishes the Regalia and her money, 292-3;
her will, 294;
indictment against, 298-9;
writ against, 316;
proceeds to Guildhall for her trial, 316-7;
trial and condemnation, 318-9, 319 f.n.;
letter to Harding, 321;
her death-warrant, 326-7;
her death announced to her, 328-9;
postponement of execution, 329-30;
reasons why she was not executed with Guildford, 330-1;
letter to her father, 331;
last letter to her sister Katherine, 332-4;
last writings, 335-6;
inscriptions in her cell, 336 f.n.;
last hours, 337 et seq.;
refuses to see Guildford but watches him go to execution, 337;
sees his bleeding remains, 339 and f.n.;
the execution delayed, 339;
the procession to the scaffold, 340;
Jane said to be _enceinte_, 341;
her last speech, 341-3;
behaviour on the scaffold, prepares for death, 343-4;
last moments and decapitation, 344;
contemporary account of execution, 344-5 f.n.;
treatment of her body after death, 345-6;
burial, 346 and f.n.;
legend about, 347;
portraits of, 359-62;
writings on Jane Grey, 342 f.n., 363-4;
her literary works, 364
Grey, Lady Katherine, 10, 17, 18, 108, 109, 119 f.n., 132, 183, 232
and f.n., 235, 252;
Lady Jane’s last letter to, 332-4; 353
Grey, Lady Mary, 10; a dwarf, 17; 18; 109; 183; 233; 252; 353; 358
Guildford Dudley, Lord, proposal to marry him to Lady Margaret
Clifford, 224, 226; 229;
birth and antecedents, 231;
appearance, 231;
his portrait, 231 f.n.;
date of his marriage with Jane Grey, 232 and f.n.;
details of the marriage, 234-5;
remains at Durham House, 237;
enters the Tower with Queen Jane, 253;
his endeavours to become King of England, 260, 261-6;
imprisoned, 292;
his money taken from him, 294;
indictment against, 298-9;
writ against, goes to trial, 316-7;
trial and condemnation, 319; 320; 326;
receives his death sentence, 330;
his autograph, 334;
desires to see Lady Jane, 337;
supposed recantation, 337;
goes out to execution, 337-8;
his execution, 338 and f.n.
Hampton Court, 43, 44, 47;
Edward VI at, 204-6
Harding, Dr., Jane’s tutor and rector of Bradgate, 15, 27, 170, 321
Henry VIII, his religiosity, 37;
divorces Anne of Cleves, 37-8;
marries Katherine Parr, 39;
his appearance, 46;
in expedition to France, 54, 55-7;
declines in health, 59;
defeats the plot against Katherine Parr, 67-9;
his will, 69 f.n.;
text of, 109 and f.n., 110, 238, 111; 72;
his last illness, 100-1;
does not receive the last Sacraments, 102;
death, 104;
his body embalmed, 107;
funeral arrangements, 107-8, 111;
funeral procession and sermon, 112-4;
weird occurrence at Sion, 113;
supernatural apparitions of Henry, 114;
effect of his will, 115
Hertford, Earl of, son of the Duke of Somerset, proposal to marry
him to Jane, 119, 153, 210, 230; 119 f.n.; 127; 232 f.n.; 315
Hoby, Sir Philip, English Ambassador to Brussels, 40, 262 and f.n.,
266, 267-8;
submits to Mary, 296;
recalled, 297; 328 f.n.
Holland, Mrs. Elizabeth or Bess, 75 and f.n., 85-6;
gives evidence at Surrey’s trial, 89-90; 92; 93; 94; 95 f.n.
Household, Henry VIII’s, 42 et seq.;
etiquette in, 49
Howard, the house of, 73 and f.n.;
feud between the Howards and the Seymours, 73, 76, 81 et seq.;
their relations with the Dorsets, 95-6
Huggones, Mrs., 225;
called before the Privy Council, 226
Hunsdon, 95 f.n.
Huyck, Dr., 145 and f.n.
Inventory of the Howards’ effects, 92 et seq.;
of the Crown Jewels, etc., delivered to Queen Jane, 270, 293;
of Queen Jane’s own effects, 271-2
Jane Grey, Lady. (_See_ Grey, Lady Jane)
Ket, Robert, 200 and f.n.;
his rebellion, 201-2;
captured and hanged, 202; 235 f.n.
Knox, John, 156, 157, 281
Kyme, Thomas, husband of Anne Askew, 61, 63
Latimer, Lord, 32-3;
correspondence with Sir John Russell, 33-4;
dies, 34; 162
Latimer, Lady. (_See_ Parr, Katherine)
Margaret Clifford, Lady, proposal to marry her to Guildford Dudley,
224, 226; 225 and f.n.
Mary of Guise, Queen-Regent of Scotland, 110;
enters London, 181-2
Mary, Princess, afterwards Queen of England, 39, 52-3, 94, 102, 121;
the Dorsets and Mary, 181;
visited by the Dorsets, 183;
her feelings towards Lady Jane Grey, 189; 233;
omitted from the scheme for the succession, 239, 241 f.n.;
Northumberland’s intrigues against her and her escape, 249, 250;
declared illegitimate, 258, 259;
her letter to the Council, 268;
risings in favour of, 273-4, 277, 281, 283;
proclaimed Queen, 285;
popular enthusiasm for, 285-6;
affection for Philip of Spain, 297;
enters London, 298;
enters the Tower as Queen, 299;
her hatred of Northumberland, 302, 306;
Coronation, 312-3;
wishes to spare Lady Jane’s life, 314 and f.n., 315-6, 320;
decline of enthusiasm for, 322;
signs Jane’s death-warrant, 327; 337
Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 109, 238
Mary Tudor, Queen of France, 8;
marries Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, 9;
her children, 9;
dies, 10;
her monument, 11
Montagu, Lord Chief Justice, 240, 241, 242, 243, 281 f.n.
Morgan, Judge, 298;
presides at Queen Jane’s trial, 318;
his career and death, 318 f.n.;
condemns Jane to death, 319
Mortimer, Lady. (_See_ under Brandon, Charles)
Morysone, Sir Richard, English Ambassador, 262, 266;
recalled, 297
Newhall Place, description of, 186-7;
life at, 188
Noailles, the de, French Ambassadors, 312, 315, 345, 345-6 f.n.
Nonesuch, Palace of, 45 and f.n.
Norfolk, Thomas Howard, third Duke of, 32, 54, 66, 73, 74;
appearance, 74-5;
marriage, 75;
his attempt to reconcile his son and the Seymours, 81 et seq.;
charged with treason and taken to the Tower, 88;
his death-warrant prepared, 92;
release, 92;
dispersal of his lands and wardrobe, 92-3; 105; 298;
death, 302; 312, 313; 316;
attends Lady Jane’s trial, 317; 341
Norfolk, Duchess of, is neglected by her husband, 75;
her grievances, 85-6;
gives evidence against her husband, 89; 94
Northampton, William Parr, Earl of Essex and Marquis of, 29, 53, 54;
created Marquis, 129; 163; 197; 202; 214; 240; 241; 251;
letter to, 259; 275; 281 f.n.;
indictment against, 299;
trial, 302-3; 304; 325
Northampton, Marchioness of, 141 f.n.
Northumberland, John Dudley, Duke of (previously Viscount Lisle and
Earl of Warwick), 38, 50, 54, 57;
becomes Lord Chamberlain, 112;
created Earl of Warwick, 129; 130;
his antecedents, 190 and f.n., 191;
birth, 191;
goes to France, 192;
his wife, 192;
his intrigues, 192;
successful expedition into Norfolk, 202;
popularity, 203;
becomes Lord Great Master and High-Admiral, 207;
governs badly, 208;
endeavours to overthrow Somerset, 211;
is created Duke of Northumberland, 212;
makes false accusations against Somerset, 213;
attends Somerset’s trial, 214;
position improved by Somerset’s death, 221 and f.n.;
interferes with Princess Mary’s religion, 221 f.n., 222;
social intercourse with the Suffolks, 224, 228-9;
induces Edward VI to nominate Jane Grey as his successor, 239-40,
240 f.n.;
coerces the Council, 242;
tyrannises over every one, 243 f.n.;
rumours that he had poisoned Edward VI, 246-7, 247 f.n., 315 f.n.;
intrigues to destroy Princess Mary, 249;
informs Jane that she is Queen, 251;
his schemes for changing the State religion, 265; 267;
his farewell dinner, 274-5;
takes command of Queen Jane’s forces against Mary, and leaves
London with them, 275;
sends for reinforcements and retires to Cambridge, 277;
made prisoner, 279;
brought to the Tower, 280;
indictment against, 299;
his bad health, 301;
Mary’s hatred for him, 302, 306;
his trial and condemnation, 302 and f.n., 303;
his recantation, 304 and f.n.;
pathetic letter to Arundel, 305-6;
his sincerity in changing his faith, 306 f.ns.;
his execution postponed and the probable reason, 306-7, 307 f.n.;
leave-taking of Guildford, 307;
his execution, 307-8;
curious account of, 308 f.n.;
burial, 309;
Lady Jane’s opinion of him, 310-11;
his family, 356-7 f.n.
Northumberland, Duchess of, disliked by Lady Jane, 192;
antecedents, 231;
quarrels with Lady Jane, 236;
does homage to Jane as Queen, 251;
has a violent scene with Queen Jane in the Tower, 260-1;
her bequests to Don Mendoza, 262 f.n.;
pleads for her husband to Mary, 280;
quarrels with the Duchess of Suffolk, 282; 289;
her existence after the Duke’s execution, 355;
death, 355;
her will, 355;
strange last directions, 355-6;
funeral, 356
Owen, Dr. George, 101, 245 and f.n.
Paget, Sir William, 101, 105, 106, 213, 283, 285, 295, 358 f.n.
Palmer, Sir Thomas, 213, 281 f.n.;
condemnation, 304;
execution, 307-8
Parr, Katherine, Queen (previously Lady Latimer), birth, 28;
first marriage, 29;
her appearance, 30 and f.n.;
her education, writings, etc., 31;
first dealings, with Henry VIII, 37, 38;
her marriage with Henry VIII, 39;
public opinion on, 39-40; 51-2;
her writings, 53; 54; 59;
her connection and encouragement of Anne Askew, 62, 64, 72 note;
is nearly arrested for heresy, 67-9;
the plot against, 69 et seq.;
at Henry VIII’s death-bed, 102; 108 and f.n.;
mentioned in Henry’s will, 110, 110-11 f.n., 238;
at Henry VIII’s funeral, 114; 119;
her _liaison_ with Thomas Seymour, 121-2;
marriage to Seymour, 123;
indignation of the Somersets at the marriage, 124;
her life at Sudeley Castle, 142;
gives birth to a child, 143;
her last days, 144 et seq.;
makes her will, 145;
death and funeral, 145-6
Parr, the family of, 28-9
Parr, Sir Thomas, 29, 53
Partridge, Nathaniel, Lady Jane’s warder, 290 and f.n.; 310
Pembroke, William Herbert, Earl of, 29, 53, 54, 130, 160, 163, 214,
251, 261, 283, 284, 285, 286
Penn, Mrs. Sybel, Prince Edward’s nurse, 126 and f.n., 247
Proclamation of Queen Jane, 256 and f.n., 257 and f.n.
Reformers, the Swiss and other, 59, 133-5;
their letters, 134, 180, 227;
Lady Jane Grey and the Reformers, 180, 226;
their ways and opinions, 227-8;
their comments on Lady Jane’s execution, 348
Religion, in England, return of Catholicism, 74 and f.n., 326;
state of, in the first year of Edward VI’s reign, 133;
under Edward VI, 213;
Northumberland’s schemes anent a change in, 265
Renard, Simon, the Imperial Ambassador, 265, 297, 312, 314, 315,
330, 348
Richmond, Mary, Duchess of, Earl of Surrey’s sister, 83-4, 85;
gives evidence against Surrey, 90;
repentance and death, 98; 108
Ridley, Bishop, 156, 281 and f.ns., 321
Russell, Lord John, Privy Seal, 33 and f.n., 39, 66, 199;
connection with Sudeley, 158-9; 204; 205 f.n.; 284; 312
Sandys, Dr., 277, 278;
preaches before Northumberland, 278-9; 279; 280; 281 f.n.
Seymour, Dowager Lady, 117-8;
death, 161; 211 and f.n.
Seymour, Edward, Earl of Hertford, Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector,
39, 54, 77;
quarrels with the Earl of Surrey, 81;
attempted reconciliation, 82-3;
failure of same, 84;
attends Henry VIII’s death-bed, 101, 105;
after Henry’s death leaves Palace, 106;
appointed Protector, 110;
proclaimed Protector, 111 and f.n.;
assumes the office of treasurer, etc., 111-2;
his intrigues, 119;
indignation at Thomas Seymour (Sudeley’s) marriage, quarrels with
him, 120, 124;
is created Duke of Somerset, 128;
dines with Sudeley and Warwick, 129-30;
quarrels with Sudeley, letter to, 143-4;
unpopular in Scotland, his massacres there, 192-3, 192 f.n.;
unpopular in England, 194-5;
his loose morals, 197;
risings against his maladministration, 199;
takes refuge at Hampton Court, 204;
assumes higher rank, 204;
flies to Windsor, 206;
arrested and sent to the Tower, 206-7;
confesses his guilt, is fined and released, 208-9;
regains his lost position, 209-10; 212;
return of unpopularity, 212-3;
second arrest, 213; trial, 213-4;
sentenced to death, 214;
scene at his execution, 215;
decapitation and burial, 216;
his character considered, 216-7;
contemporary letter about him, 217-20;
his prayer-book, 334
Seymour, the family of, 76-7;
feud between the Seymours and the Howards, 81 et seq.
Sharington, Sir William, 115, 116, 151 and f.n., 152, 154, 160, 161
f.n., 276
Sheen, ex-Priory of, 223 and f.n.
Sidney, Lady Mary, Northumberland’s daughter, 229;
sent to Jane by the Council, 251; 355; 356-7 f.n.
Sion House, 224 and f.n.;
life at, 228-9;
homage paid to Lady Jane at, 251
Somers, Will, Court jester, 49 and f.n., 50
Somerset, Edward Seymour, Duke of. (_See_ Seymour, Edward)
Somerset, Anne Stanhope, Duchess of, 34, 39, 80;
quarrels with Katherine Parr, 125, 165 f.n.;
imprisoned, 213 f.n.;
her prison fare, 294;
second marriage, friendship for Mary, death, 357
Stanfield Hall (Lady Jane’s dower), 235 f.n.
Stokes, Adrian (Lady Frances Brandon’s second husband), 229, 352,
353 and f.n., 354;
death, 355
Sudeley Castle, in olden times, 141-2;
Jane Grey’s room at, 142
Sudeley, Thomas Seymour, Lord, 36, 77, 82;
at Henry VIII’s death, 101, 106;
becomes Lord High-Admiral, 112;
his intrigues to obtain possession of Lady Jane Grey, 115;
his London residence, 116 and f.n.;
obtains wardship of Lady Jane, 117;
his appearance, morals, and early intrigues, 120-1;
endeavours to marry a Princess, 121;
his courtship of Katherine Parr, 121-2;
marriage with her, 123;
gets Edward VI to countenance this marriage, 123;
the marriage made public, 123-4;
indignation of the Somersets thereat, 124;
created Baron Sudeley, 129; 130;
his improper behaviour with Princess Elizabeth, 136 et seq.;
rumours about the same, 140 and f.n.;
intrigues against the Protector, 143, 155;
is arrested but released, 143;
conduct during Katherine Parr’s illness, 144-5;
effect of her death, 147;
writes to Dorset relinquishing Jane, 147-9;
intrigues to again obtain possession of Lady Jane, on payment of
money, and interviews Dorset, 152;
negotiations concluded, 154;
pays for Jane and takes her back to Hanworth with him, 155;
again plots to marry a Princess, 157-9;
tries to obtain the Protectorship, 160;
arrested, 161;
evidence against him, 162;
condemned to death, 164;
beheaded, 165;
sermon on, 166;
fate of his child, 166-7 f.n.
Suffolk, Katherine, Duchess of, 11, 34, 39, 108, 357-8;
portrait of, 363
Suffolk, Duke of. (_See_ Dorset, Marquess of)
Suffolk, Duchess of. (_See_ Frances Brandon, Marchioness of)
Surrey, Earl of Surrey (the “Poet-Earl”), 54, 66, 74;
his many talents, 75-6;
appearance, 76;
riotous life, 78;
brought before the Privy Council, 79 and f.n.;
committed to prison, 80;
quarrels with Edward Seymour (then Lord Hertford), 81;
makes impolitic remarks, 83;
again summoned before Privy Council, 85, 86, 87;
his trial, 90-1;
execution, 91;
dispersal of his effects, 93-4;
his children, 98;
his place of burial, 99
Surrey, Countess of, 78 and f.n., 93;
second marriage and death, 98-9
Table of the heirs female to the Crown, named in the “Devise,”
239 f.n.
Throckmorton brothers, the, 37, 163;
save Mary’s life, 249-50, 250 f.n.
Throckmorton, Lady, 287-8, 291
Tower of London, the, Queen Jane’s entry into, 253;
Queen Jane proclaimed in, 256;
ammunition brought into, 273;
part of it in which Queen Jane was lodged, 281-2 f.n.;
place of her imprisonment in, 290;
seizure of, made a count against Queen Jane, 298, 298-9 f.n.;
Mary’s entry into as Queen, 299;
the Bulwark Gate, 337, 338 f.n.
Tylney, Mrs. Elizabeth, Lady Jane’s attendant, 291 and f.n.; 235;
340; 341; 343
Tyrwhitt, Lady, 35 and f.n., 62, 67;
her account of Katherine Parr’s last illness, 144-5, 162
Udall, Nicholas, 157, 172
Underhill, Edward, his child, 287
Warwick, John Dudley, Earl of. (_See_ Northumberland, Duke of)
Warwick, John, Earl of, (the Duke of Northumberland’s son), 209 and
f.n., 275, 281 f.n., 292;
trial, 302-3; 356 f.n.
Wendy, Dr., 67, 101 and f.n., 245
White, Thomas, Lord Mayor of London, 298, 316, 341
Winchester, William Paulet, Marquess of, 203;
created, 212 f.n.; 214; 241;
brings Jane the Regalia, 261, 270 and f.n.; 282; 283; 284; 292 and
f.n.; 293; 294
“Windsor Martyrs,” the, 40 and f.n.
Wriothesley, Lord Chancellor, 39, 54, 64, 65, 66;
tries to ruin Katherine Parr, 67;
Henry’s anger against him, 68-9; 87; 88; 109;
created Earl of Southampton, 129 and f.n.; 160; 203; 313 f.n.
Wyatt rebellion, the, 325;
capture of Wyatt, 326
_Printed by_ MORRISON & GIBB LIMITED, _Edinburgh_
FOOTNOTES
[1] This will be seen conspicuously in my new volume of Spanish State
Papers of Edward VI, now in the press to be issued next year by the
Record Office.
[2] Antonio de Guaras, a Spanish merchant. This was just before
Somerset’s final downfall. See Spanish Chronicle of Henry VIII.
[3] “The oak trees there [Bradgate] were pollarded after her [Jane’s]
execution. Some old members of the family remember a watch with a case
made of a hollowed ruby or carbuncle, which is said to have belonged
to Lady Jane. But this, with other relics of Lady Jane, seems to have
disappeared mysteriously some fifty or so years ago.”--Extract from a
letter from Earl Stamford and Warrington, dated 20th November 1907.
[4] The barony of Ferrers was merged in the Townshend peerage by the
marriage, in 1751, of George, Viscount Townshend, with Charlotte, last
Baroness Ferrers.
[5] State Papers, Domestic Series, Henry VIII.
[6] The Priory of Tylsey was dedicated to Our Lady of Sorrows.
[7] State Papers, Domestic Series, Henry VIII.
[8] Miss Strickland and other writers on the Grey family state that
Margaret, Marchioness of Dorset, outlived the ruin of her family. This
is an error. She died in September 1541, apparently of the plague. See
State Papers, 1156 and 1489, Domestic Series, Henry VIII.
[9] This lady is occasionally confounded with Queen Anne Boleyn, who
was never _Lady_ Anne Boleyn. The lady in question, who has proved
somewhat of a stumbling-block to historians, who have frequently
confused her with the Queen, was Anne, daughter of the Earl of Pembroke
and wife of Sir William Boleyn.
[10] Lady Jane was certainly christened at Bradgate and not at Groby,
which confirms the statement that she was born at Bradgate; for if
she had been born at Groby, her baptism would have taken place in the
parish church of that village.
[11] There has been some controversy over the date of Queen Jane
Seymour’s death. Bishop Burnet (p. 33, vol. ii.) says it was the
day after Prince Edward’s birth, _i.e._ 14th October; which date is
adopted by Hall (p. 825), Stow (p. 575), Speed (p. 1039), Herbert (p.
492), and Holinshed (p. 944). On the other hand, Henninges (_Theatrum
Genealogicum_, tome 4, p. 105) says it was the 15th; a letter of the
doctors (in Cottonian MSS, Nero C. x. fol. 2), the 17th; Fabian, 23rd
October; King Edward’s own _Journal_, “Within a few days after the
birth of her son, died ...;” and George Lilly (_Chronicle_), twelve
days after--_Duodecimo post die moritur_. However, Cecil’s _Journal_,
a document in the Herald’s Office, and a letter among the State Papers
dated Wednesday, 24th October, give the 24th October as the date of the
Queen’s death. This is in agreement with the statement in the _London
Chronicle during the Reigne of Henry VII and Henry VIII_ (Camden Soc.,
from Cottonian MSS, Vespasian A. xxv. fol. 38-46), which clearly says
that “On Saynt Edwardes eve Fryday in the mornyng (12th October), was
prince Edward boorn, the trew son of K.H. the viii. and quene Jane
his mothur in Hamton Corte. His godffathurs was the deuke of Norfock,
and the deuke of Suffocke, and the (Arch) Bisschop of Caunterbery;
and his godmother was his owne sister, which was dooughter of quene
Kataryn a fore sayd. On Saynte Crispyns eve Wensday (24th October),
dyid quene Jane in childbed, and is beryid in the castelle of Wynsor.”
She was not, however, buried until 12th November. Dorset followed the
procession from Hampton Court to Windsor, riding close to the Princess
Mary, who was her stepmother’s chief mourner.
[12] Jane Grey was evidently given the name of Jane in compliment to
Queen Jane Seymour, who must have been still living at the time of
the child’s birth. The name Jane, a variant of Johanna and Joan, is
exceedingly rare in pre-Reformation times. The lady who very likely
acted as godmother was her paternal aunt, Lady Cicely Grey.
[13] This method of baptizing infants is still practised in the
Archdiocese of Milan.
[14] These ceremonies, which are extremely ancient and essentially
Roman Catholic, are even now carried out in Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
[15] The prefix _the_ before the title Lady was considered in the
sixteenth century equivalent to “Princess”; “the Lady Elizabeth,” “the
Lady Mary,” and so forth. “Royal Highness” was not in use, and royal
ladies were addressed as “Your Grace.”
[16] An old cookery book of the sixteenth century in the possession of
the author contains the following “crafte to make Ypocras”: “Take a
quarter of red wyne, an unce of synamon, and half an unce of gynger: a
quarter of an unce of greynes and of longe pepper, wythe half a pound
of sugar: broie all these not too smalle, and then putte them in a bagg
of wullen clothe (made therefore) with the wyne, and lette it hange
over a vessel tylle the wyne be runne thorow. It is presumed that the
wyne should be poured in boiling hot, else it would gain little of the
spicy flavour.”
[17] Dorset, when he became Duke of Suffolk, incurred the censure of
the Reformers under Edward VI for his sinful encouragement of players
and other like “vagabonds.”
[18] In Lent and Advent, and during Passion and Rogation weeks, meat
was only served once a week.
[19] Sir Thomas Carden’s account for sums disbursed for the household
expenses of Anne of Cleves in 1552 gives us a curious insight into the
manner and expense of lighting a gentlewoman’s house in the middle of
the sixteenth century. Anne was residing at a manor at Dartford, and
Sir Thomas supplied her with “35 lb. of wax lights, sixes and fours to
the lb. at 1s. per lb.; 100 prickets [or candles to be stuck on an iron
spike] at 6d. per lb.; staff torches 1s. 4d. per doz., and of white
lights, 18 doz. at 9s. per doz.”--Losely MSS, edited by A. J. Kempe.
[20] This detestable game is still a favourite in parts of Cuba, but
generally with a goose substituted for the duck. The writer saw it
“played” there in 1879.
[21] The fact that this house was the Dorsets’ usual town residence
is proved by the Marquess’s distinctly stating that Seymour, when he
fetched away Jane Grey, came to him “immediately” after Henry VIII’s
death “at my house in Westminster.”
[22] Coaches, properly so called, were introduced into England in 1601.
[23] “The gentlewomen in cloak and _safeguards_.”--Stage directions to
the _Merry Devil of Edmonton_.
[24] Strype’s _Memorials_.
[25] Queen Katherine Parr was buried in the chapel at Sudeley Castle,
which fell into ruins late in the seventeenth century. The monument
having become much dilapidated, the then Vicar of Sudeley (1786) had
the curiosity to open it and examine the condition of the body, which
was found to be in a perfect state of preservation. The corpse measured
5 ft. 3 in.; the coffin, 5 ft. 10 in., the width being 1 ft. 4 in. in
the broadest part, and the depth 1 ft. 5½ in. The Queen must therefore
have had a very slight figure. The body was fully dressed in a Court
costume of the period of cloth of gold and velvet; there were untanned
leather shoes upon the feet. The profusion of light golden hair was
quite remarkable. Of course several locks of it were snipped off and
preserved as relics, one of them being still exhibited at Sudeley.
Another lock of Katherine Parr’s hair was in the possession of Lord
Bennet, who showed it to the author. It was very bright in colour and
exceedingly curly. In 1805 the remains of Katherine Parr were again
disturbed, and it was then discovered that an ivy berry had fallen
into a fissure of the skull, taken root, and twined round the head a
verdant coronet. For the last time the remains were touched in 1842,
when they were removed with reverential care by Messrs. William and
John Dent, who had become possessors of Sudeley Castle, and placed in a
handsome monument, having above it a noble figure of the Queen, which
is still one of the chief ornaments of the exquisitely restored chapel
of the ancient castle--a veritable treasure-house of Tudor relics--now
so pleasantly associated with the Dent family. For these notes on the
remains of Katherine Parr the writer is personally indebted to the late
Miss Elizabeth Strickland, who so long survived her sister Agnes, and
to an interesting pamphlet on Sudeley Castle by Dr. Richard Garnett.
[26] The MS. of this poem is contained in a little volume bound in
black morocco. Though evidently contemporary, some doubts have been
expressed as to its authenticity, but a marked allusion to the writer’s
position as a Consort of Henry VIII is supposed to be a sufficient
guarantee as to the identity of the royal poetess, not to speak of the
evidence of her handwriting.
[27] He is the gentleman with the beautiful saint-like head and angelic
expression in the splendid series of drawings by Holbein at Windsor.
[28] This Mr. “Nudygate” or Newdigate’s son became in due time
secretary to Anne Stanhope, Duchess of Somerset, and her second husband.
[29] British Museum, Vespasian, F. xiii. 183, f. 131.
[30] Lady Denny was the daughter of Sir Philip Champernoun of Modbury,
Devonshire, and wife of Sir Andrew Denny, Privy Councillor and Groom of
the Stole to Henry VIII. Her husband predeceased her on 10th September
1549, and she herself died on 15th May 1553.
[31] Lady Fitzwilliam was the daughter of Sir W. Sidney and wife of Sir
William Fitzwilliam of Milton, Northamptonshire, Master of the King’s
Bench. Sir H. Gough Nichols, however, thinks she was more probably the
widow of that Sir William’s grandfather, Sir William Fitzwilliam of
Milton and Alderman of London, who died in 1534. In this case she would
have been the daughter of Sir John Ormonde and granddaughter of Anne
Cooke, the learned daughter of Sir A. Cooke by his first wife, Anne
Fitzwilliam.
[32] Lady Tyrritt or Tyrwhitt was not, as Miss Strickland says, the
daughter of Katherine Parr’s first husband, but through her husband,
Lord Robert Tyrwhitt of Leighton House, the cousin seven times removed
of that gentleman. She was the daughter of Sir Gerald Oxenburgh of
Sussex.
[33] This Countess of Sussex was Anne, daughter of Sir Philip Calthorpe
and second wife of Henry, Earl of Sussex. She was sent to the Tower in
April 1552 on a charge of witchcraft, and for having said that a son of
Edward IV was yet living. Lodged in the Lieutenant’s apartments, she
was liberated by order of the Duke of Northumberland in the following
September, after six months’ imprisonment. In all probability the
offence of which this lady was accused was merely that of having
predicted the young King Edward VI’s early death.
[34] There were some very curious rumours circulating in London
concerning the divorce of Anne of Cleves. Cranmer granted the divorce
on the plea that the Queen was still _virgo intacta_; but “two honest
citizens” (letter from Chapuys to Charles V) “were arrested on 9th
December 1541 on a plea that they published particulars of Queen
Katherine Howard’s inchastity, and said ‘the whole thing was a judgment
of God,’ and that the lady of Cleves was the King’s real wife; and that
she was in the family way by the King, notwithstanding rumours to the
contrary. That it was not true the King had not behaved to her like a
husband; and that she was gone away from London and had had a son in
the country last summer.”
[35] Robert Testwood was a chorister belonging, with Marbeck, to the
Chapel Royal, Windsor. Parsons was a priest, and Henry Filmer was
a tailor. Marbeck, who is said to have had a very fine voice, was
a fairly well-educated man, who at the time of his arrest had made
some progress with a translation of Calvin’s works. Testwood was a
well-known ribald jester who had frequently turned the anthem into
ridicule, and on more than one occasion had been caught singing lewd
words while the rest of the congregation were chanting the right ones.
He was arrested for smashing the nose of a statue of the Virgin;
Parsons was condemned for blasphemy; and Filmer for speaking ill of the
Host. He had said that if Transubstantiation were true, he had eaten
“twenty Gods” in his time.
[36] The Royal Household was considerably reduced by Somerset in the
first year of Edward VI, but in Elizabeth’s day it was again augmented
in every department, and was the most terrible and disastrous legacy
the great Queen bequeathed to her Stuart successor. The only other
example of such an extraordinary plethora of Court officials and
retainers is to be found at the Court of France under Louis XIV and
Louis XV’s unhappy successor, and they were a great factor in bringing
about the Revolution.
[37] Harl. 1419. The above account of Henry’s palaces and their
contents is taken from this important MSS: the Household Expenses,
State Papers, Royal Society’s Papers, _temp._ Henry VIII, and from the
very curious Trevelyan Papers, Camden Society; also from that admirable
work, _The History of Hampton Court Palace_, by Ernest Law, M.A.
[38] These tapestries were duplicates of those still preserved in the
Vatican, the cartoons for which are at the South Kensington Museum.
They remained in Whitehall till the death of Charles I, when they were
sold to Don Alfonso de Cardenas, and passed at his decease to the house
of Alva, which in turn sold them to Mr. Peter Tupper, who brought
them to England in 1823; in his house they remained until they were
resold to Mr. William Trall. In 1863 they were exhibited at the Crystal
Palace, and came very near destruction in the fire which devastated the
Tropical Department. Their subsequent fate is unknown, but as recently
as 1889 the writer saw two of the series in a shop in Wardour Street.
In 1890 a series of finely painted cartoons, evidently by Raphael
and his pupils, representing scenes from the Acts of the Apostles,
identical with these, came from Russia, and were exhibited by the late
Mr. Martin Colnaghi and afterwards sold to an American financier.
[39] The Palace of Nonesuch stood near the site of the old manor house
and the village church of Chuddington, near Cheam, in Surrey. Henry
VIII obtained possession of the manor as a hunting-seat in 1526 by
exchange, and erected a magnificent structure of freestone, having
a central gate-house and being flanked by lofty towers crowned with
cupolas in the form of inverted balloons, which gave the building a
decided Oriental appearance. The writers of the sixteenth century are
profuse in their laudations of this royal residence, and speak in the
most glowing terms of its beautifully furnished apartments, which
contained works of art worthy of ancient Greece or of Rome, and of its
lovely gardens, its orchards stocked with the choicest of fruit trees,
and its extensive park laid out in avenues ornamented by artificial
fountains. Its luxuriousness and beauty soon acquired for the new
palace the proud appellation of “Nonesuch.” Henry VIII never quite
completed it, but in Mary’s reign it passed to the Earl of Arundel, who
carried out the original intentions of its founders. Queen Elizabeth
frequently resided at Nonesuch, but whether as guest or tenant is
uncertain. Charles II presented it to the Duchess of Cleveland, who
completely demolished the palace and disparked the lands.
[40] Possibly the “Virgin of the Rocks,” now in the National Gallery.
[41] At the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.
[42] Lately in the possession of the Duke of Norfolk, and now belonging
to the nation.
[43] Windsor Castle.
[44] There were several of these allegorical “tables,” one or two of
which survive to this day in ancient contemporary engravings.
[45] Among the astronomers was the learned Nicholas Crager. William
Parr was also a student of astronomy. The State Papers contain some
mention of astronomical instruments purchased for him. Needless to say,
this “astronomy” was really only astrology under another name.
[46] Will Somer, or Somers, Court Jester to Henry VIII, and apparently
continued in that office by Edward VI, was originally in the service
of Richard Farmer, Esq., of Easton Newton, Northampton. This gentleman
was, in consequence of his having sent two groats and some articles of
clothing to a priest convicted of denying the King’s supremacy, found
guilty of a _præmunire_ and deprived of his estates. The distress to
which his former master was thereby reduced attracted the attention of
Will Somers, who during the King’s last illness availed himself of his
privileged position to let fall certain remarks concerning him, which
so worked upon the King’s mind that Henry was induced to restore to
Mr. Farmer what remained of his estates. Will Somers was an excellent
musician and had a very fine voice.
[47] This sort of slavish homage excited the sarcasm of the
Ambassadors. Soranzo, the Venetian Envoy, tells us he once saw Princess
Elizabeth kneel five times before venturing to address her brother
Edward.
[48] The household inventories of the Queen’s rooms contain mention of
innumerable pillows and cushions richly covered with silk and satin,
and also of costly counterpanes. This Oriental custom of using soft
pillows may have been introduced into England by Katherine of Aragon.
In England as in Spain the Sovereign only was allowed a chair.
[49] Political influence of this period no doubt seconded the good
offices of Queen Katherine in favour of Princess Mary. Her cousin the
Emperor was no longer an enemy, but an ally.
[50] This is the beautiful letter beginning _La nemica fortuna_,
which, although written by an English princess, is, in its way, a very
masterpiece of Italian epistolary literature. It may have been written
under the auspices of the famous Baltazar Castiglione, who taught
Elizabeth the Italian language.
[51] After her accession Queen Mary ordered this work to be recalled.
[52] State Papers, Domestic Series, Henry VIII, 1544-5. Lord Parr of
Horton died in 1545.
[53] Some very interesting particulars unknown to English historians
of the siege of Boulogne and of the sojourn of Henry VIII, Suffolk,
Surrey, and their merry men in Picardy, will be found in _Les Archives
de la Ville de Boulogne_; _Histoire de la Ville de Montreuil-sur-Mer_,
by F. Leplon; _Memoires de Martin de Bellamy_ (Michaud, Paris, 1838);
_Inventaire de l’Histoire de France_, by Le Comte Jean de Serre; in
a very curious little volume entitled _Le Château d’Hardelot_; also
in _Notre Dame de Boulogne_, by l’Abbé Haignere, published by Hamain,
Boulogne-sur-Mer, 1898; and in the _Spanish Chronicle of the Reign of
Henry VIII_, translated by Major Martin Hume.
[54] Full particulars of the reasons for and the progress of this
disagreement will be found in vol. viii. of the _Spanish State Papers
of Henry VIII_, vols. vii. and viii., edited by Major Martin Hume.
[55] See for evidence of this fact a curious document included in the
Notes to the _Journal_ of Edward VI, who himself informs us that his
father drove away anybody who appeared before him in mourning.
[56] Speed.
[57] See Privy Council Papers, 1546.
[58] Anne Askew’s “Narrative.” It is but fair to the reputation of both
Rich and Wriothesley to state that Anne herself admits that she sat
talking with both for two hours immediately after the torture, which
she could not possibly have done if it had been very severe.
[59] The text of the full confession of Mrs. Askew will be found among
the State Papers for 1545, Nos. 390, 391.
[60] This scene must have taken place, not at Windsor, as stated by
Foxe, for Henry never was there after the early spring of 1546, but at
Hampton Court. The allusion to his striking Gardiner’s name out of his
will must refer to some of the many wills he made before his last (in
December of the same year). In this Gardiner’s name was not struck out,
but simply omitted.
[61] Dr. Thirlby’s name was not omitted in the last will, but he was
absent abroad at the time of the King’s death.
[62] See Note at the end of this Chapter.
[63] This curious fact, that the unorthodox if not heretical King
actually communicated at the same time as the orthodox Ambassador, is
one of the most significant incidents in the story of this singular
period of religious disquiet.
[64] Among the members of the house of Howard who were prisoners in the
Tower at this time were Agnes, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, the Lord
William Howard and his wife and sister, the Countess of Bridgewater,
and Lord Thomas Howard, Surrey’s younger brother, who was imprisoned
for marrying Henry’s niece, the Lady Margaret Douglas, without the
royal consent.
[65] For an account of these processions see Machyn’s Diary (_The
Diary of Henry Machyn_, edited by John Gough Nicholas, F.S.A., Camden
Society, pp. 63, 107, etc. Also note, p. 399).
[66] The Lord Mayor, who was at the arraignment of Queen Anne Boleyn,
afterwards said that he “could not observe anything in the proceedings
against her, but that they were resolved to make an occasion to get rid
of her”--thus corroborating the opinions of Sir Thomas Wyatt and other
witnesses.
[67] When quite a lad, the Duke married the Princess Anne Plantagenet,
youngest daughter of Edward IV and sister to Queen Elizabeth of York.
By this royal alliance he became uncle-by-marriage to Henry VIII. Anne,
Duchess of Norfolk, died of consumption in 1512, and shortly afterwards
her widower married again.
[68] This lady was the second daughter of the unfortunate Duke of
Buckingham, who was executed on a public charge of combined sorcery and
treason, in the first years of Henry VIII’s reign.
[69] Elizabeth Holland was the daughter of John Holland of Redenhall,
Norfolk, chief steward and afterwards secretary to the Duke of Norfolk.
Her mother was a Hussey, niece of Lord Hussey of Sleaford, beheaded for
the part he took in the Pilgrimage of Grace.
[70] Sir John Seymour, father of Queen Jane, was a man of note in his
day. He was born in 1474, and was a doughty soldier, fighting well at
the sieges of Terouenne and Tournay, and at the Battle of the Spurs. On
his return to England he was appointed Sheriff of Wells, Dorset, and
Somersetshire. In 1515 he obtained the Constableship of Bristol Castle.
His wife, Margery Wentworth, was the daughter of Sir Henry Wentworth
of Nettlestead, Suffolk, whose grandfather married a granddaughter of
Hotspur (Henry Percy), and was thus descended from Edward III. Sir John
Seymour died in 1517.
[71] Realising the suddenness of their rise to power, Hayward says of
the Seymour brothers (_Life of Edward VI_, p. 82) that “their _new_
lustre did dim the light of men honoured with ancient nobility.”
[72] Little is known of William Pickering except that he was a boon
companion of Lord Surrey. See _Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_ by Martin
Hume.
[73] Holbein’s fine sketch of Lady Surrey shows her to have been
distinctly “homely” but extremely intelligent-looking.
[74] An examination of the Privy Papers shows that Surrey was
originally brought before the Council on a charge of eating flesh on
days of abstinence--a grave offence, and one against the law, but at
that period of frequent occurrence, since no less than nine joiners
had been a few days previously arrested and severely reprimanded, and
even heavily fined, for the offence of eating meat in public on Friday.
Surrey pleaded guilty, but in extenuation declared he had received
an ecclesiastical dispensation. With regard to the second charge, of
riotous conduct, he declared himself deserving of punishment, but threw
himself on the mercy of the Court, alleging, in extenuation of his
misdemeanour, his youth and hot-blooded disposition. He is said to have
written an abject apology; but, though the letter is extant, it is not
in his handwriting, and may therefore be a forgery. The occurrence took
place on the night of 21st January 1544.
[75] M. Edmond Bapst, _Vie de Deux Gentilhommes Poètes du Temps de
Henri VIII_.
[76] Surrey, in his metrical “Satire,” makes use of the same whimsical
excuse for shooting with a bow through citizens’ windows. Says he:--
“This made me with a reckless brest,
To wake thy sluggards with my bow;
A figure of the Lord’s behest,
Whose scourge for synne the Scriptures shew.”
[77] This ball was, it appears, given for the purpose of conciliating
the Seymours and at Surrey’s express request. It must have been a
picturesque function, with its rich costumes, its splendid but rather
roughly expressed profusion and hearty welcome. Just such a ball as
this old Capulet gave on that ever-memorable night when Juliet first
met her Romeo. Was it to dance the _Volta_ or the _Salta_ with him that
Surrey invited the angry Countess? These, the two most fashionable
dances of the period, had been but recently introduced from France and
Italy. The latter resembled, and very closely too, our modern waltz,
only in the _Salta_ the gentleman lifts the lady from time to time an
inch or so from the ground, as in the German hop waltz.
“Yet there is one, the most delightful kind,
A lofty jumping, or a leaping round,
When arm in arm, two dancers are entwin’d,
And which themselves, in strict embracements bound
And still their feet, an anapest do sound;
An anapest is all their music’s song
Whose first two feet are short, the rest are long.”
_Sir John Davies’ Orchestra._
See also for an account of the _Volta_, the _Orlando Furioso_ of
Boiardo, book xv. stanza 43. These two dances, the _Volta_ and the
_Salta_, were introduced into Scotland by Madeleine de Valois, the
first wife of James V, and gave terrible offence to the “unco’ guid”
folk of “Auld Reekie.”
[78] See State Papers, Domestic Series, Henry VIII, 1542-3; also Miss
Strickland’s excellent biography of Katherine Howard in the _Lives of
the Queens of England_, and the _Wives of Henry VIII_, by Martin Hume.
[79] The Duke’s second son.
[80] Herbert’s _Henry VIII_.
[81] These are the volumes he desired to have delivered to him whilst
imprisoned in the Tower.
[82] He must have left Norfolk in a great hurry, for he had to borrow
a sum of money from Sir William Stonor, Lieutenant of the Tower, to
buy a dark suit of clothes in which to appear before the Council. The
documents connected with this transaction are still preserved in the
British Museum, Additional MSS 24459, fol. 1497.
[83] _Spanish Chronicle of Henry VIII_, translated by Major Martin
Hume, and the _Calendar of Spanish State Papers_, vol. viii., by the
same Editor.
[84] These “night-gowns” were most probably what we should now call
“evening dresses” or “dress suits.”
[85] This lady was a rather interesting personage, being the first
British peeress who was ever reduced to earning her living by her
needle. She was the widow of that Earl of Oxford who was killed during
the Wars of the Roses and whose estates were so carefully confiscated
that his widow was left penniless.
[86] A list of the names of persons in the Earl’s retinue is extremely
curious. In the first place, we find that one John Holland was private
secretary. He was the father of George Holland, who in his turn was the
father of the husband of that Mrs. Holland who figured in the Surrey
trial. Then we have Mr. William Sappeworth, Mr. Widdow, Mr. Hairbottle,
and Mrs. Ingliss. We learn that the company was often regaled with
boiled neck of mutton; and a very favourite dish appears to have been
boiled capon with sauce and a roast breast of veal basted. Occasionally
they indulged in rabbit pie, and there was a bountiful supply of tarts,
custards, and sweetmeats.
[87] Hunsdon, in Worcestershire, was one of the numerous seats of the
Duke of Norfolk, which he lent on rental to Princess Mary, who first
came there in 1536, having in her company Mistress Elizabeth Fitzgerald
or Garret. The house, according to William Worcester, was built in
Henry VI’s reign by Sir William Oldhall at an expense of 7000 marks. It
had four towers and was mainly built of brick.
[88] Lady Kildare’s frequent petitions to King Henry for money
generally contain some mention of her being his kinswoman and “of his
most Royal blood.” See Cottonian MSS, Titus B. xi. 342. It will be
remembered that Lady Elizabeth Grey attended the christening of the
Lady Frances at Hatfield Church as a sponsor.
[89] It has frequently been stated that the Lady Elizabeth
Fitzgerald--or Garret, as she was generally called--was educated with
Princess Mary, but this is obviously incorrect, since she was born when
her future royal mistress was fully fourteen years of age. But she was
certainly in Mary’s service, and not in that of her sister Elizabeth,
as stated by Bapst.
[90] There is a fine portrait of her by Kettel at Woburn Abbey, and a
copy at Carton.
[91] Princess Mary’s present to Mistress Elizabeth Garret on her
marriage was “A gold broach with one bolace of the history of Susanne.”
Another gift is mentioned in her list of jewels in the following
entry: “A broach of gold enamelled black, with an agate of the story
of Abraham--with iii small rock rubies--Given to Sir Anthony Brown,
drawing her Grace as his valentine.”
These gifts were presented to the bride and bridegroom on 10th
December, in the thirty-third year of Henry’s reign. The youthful bride
could not have been more than fifteen years of age, and Sir Anthony was
not much under sixty.
[92] Hentzner also saw the bedchamber in which Henry VIII died, but
this was late in Elizabeth’s reign, when it was shown as one of the
“lions” of the palace, a fact which tends to prove that the apartment
was never again used by any other sovereign, but kept as a sort of
show-place.
[93] In his youth Henry’s eyes had been considered fine. In the picture
by Paris Bordone, belonging to the Merchant Taylors’ Company, they are
a light grey and decidedly good in colour and shape.
[94] Edward VI was never officially proclaimed Prince of Wales--the
document doing so was prepared, but was delayed by the death of his
father. None the less, he is frequently so styled in the last years of
Henry’s reign.
[95] Dr. Wendy became physician to Elizabeth. He died in 1560 at
Haslingford Court, a manor given to him by Henry VIII.
[96] Dr. Gale was living as late as 1586. He wrote a curious work
entitled _The Office of a Chirurgeon_, which gives a dreadful picture
of warfare in the sixteenth century. See for an account of this rare
work, once possessed by the author, _The Medical Biography_, p. 65.
[97] Father Thiveter, a Franciscan, who obtained some curious facts
concerning the death of Henry VIII, presumably from Princess Mary,
wrote an account of that event which has been occasionally reprinted.
[98] The Queen had sent him a picture of the King, his father, and of
herself, in one frame. Edward was so delighted with the present that he
said he preferred it to gold-embroidered robes and other things most
priceless: “_Quamobrem majores tibi gratias ego ob hanc strenam, quam
si misisses ad me preciosas vestes, aut aurum celatum, aut quidvis
aliud eximium._”
[99] “Thursday,” writes Aubrey, “was a fatal day to Henry VIII, and so
also to his posterity. He died on Thursday, January 28; King Edward VI
on Thursday, July 6; Queen Mary on Thursday, November 17; and Queen
Elizabeth on Thursday, March 24.”
[100] During the last year of Henry’s reign Edward had resided at
Hatfield with his sister Elizabeth. Very early in December it was
deemed advisable, owing to the precarious state of the King’s health,
to remove the young Prince from Hatfield, first to Tittenhanger House,
in Hertfordshire, and then to Hertford itself. His various removals can
be traced from the dates of his letters to his father, to the Queen,
and to the Princesses his sisters. On 5th December, for instance, he
wrote a letter to Elizabeth from Tittenhanger lamenting his enforced
absence from her. And later, on the 18th, he wrote another in the same
strain; but on 10th January he addressed his sister Mary a Latin letter
from Hertford, and on the same day the epistle already mentioned to
Queen Katherine. Elizabeth, in the meantime, was relegated to Enfield
Chase, where she remained until she joined Queen Katherine at Chelsea,
after Henry’s death.
[101] King Francis I, notwithstanding Henry’s unorthodox opinions and
his notorious revolt from Rome, ordered a Requiem to be said in the
Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris for the repose of the soul of his
well-beloved brother, Henry VIII, King of England, at which service
he assisted; he also left in his will a sum of money to be devoted to
Masses to be said in perpetuity for the same pious purpose. A Mass is
still offered every year in the Metropolitan Church of Paris for the
repose of the soul of our “Bluff King Hal,” the custom having survived
even the Reign of Terror.
[102] These noble ladies were not present in any official capacity,
but simply “to pray for the soul of the departed King.” It was not the
custom for women to attend the funeral of a male, except as an act of
devotion. They wore on these occasions black cloth gowns and black
cloaks and hoods or silk scarfs. This costume was general at funerals,
and especially in the country, until the end of the first half of the
last century.
[103] Her separate establishment was formed early in March, and she
then took up her residence at Chelsea; but she may well have hovered
between Whitehall and the Manor House for some weeks after the King’s
death, whilst her future residence was being put in readiness for her.
[104] The King’s will was dated 26th December 1546, and revoked all
other previous wills that he might have made. The original was not in
Henry’s own hand, but written in a book of stout paper, and was, it
is said, signed by His Majesty’s stamp as well as his autograph. It
should be remembered that because the act of attainder against the
Duke of Norfolk had merely a stamp affixed to it by Paget, the said
attainder was in 1553 treated as null and void, and the Duke, after his
liberation, at once resumed his seat in the House of Lords.
[105] This significant allusion to “any other wives he might have”
inclines one to think that had His Majesty lived to seventy or eighty,
he may have contemplated having twelve instead of six wives!
[106] King Henry’s will is said to have been inspired not only by the
Earl of Hertford and his party, but by the Queen, Katherine Parr.
This, however, is scarcely probable, since if she had had a hand in
the matter she would assuredly have caused a paragraph to have been
inserted appointing her Regent during the minority of her stepson.
Marillac, the French Ambassador, informs us in his “Notes” that when
Katherine discovered that she was not so nominated she gave way to a
great outburst of indignation and temper.
[107] See the Losely MSS, edited by A. J. Kempe. John Murray, 1835.
[108] His position as Protector was not officially ratified until 22nd
March.
[109] As a matter of fact, the royal corpse was, owing to its weight,
not enclosed in a lead shell until it reached Windsor, so that the
chronicler has made a mistake; but the fact that it was in a mere
wooden case lends support to the above horrible story. Strype, it is
true, declares in his _Memorials_, which include a very minute account
of Henry VIII’s funeral, that the _body_ was enclosed in lead before it
was placed in the coffin, thus unintentionally supporting the story of
the leakage of blood; but the plumbers’ bill for the soldering of the
leaden coffin of King Henry VIII at Windsor is still extant among the
Royal Household receipts and expenses.