The French Queen's Letters: Mary Tudor Brandon and the Politics of Marriage in Sixteenth-Century Europe (Queenship and Power)

QUEENSHIP AND POWER Series Editors: Carole Levin and Charles Beem This series brings together monographs and edited volumes from scholars specializing in gender analysis, women’s studies, literary interpretation, and cultural, political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. It aims to broaden our understanding of the strategies that queens— both consorts and regnants, as well as female regents—pursued in order to wield political power within the structures of male-dominant societies. In addition to works describing European queenship, it also includes books on queenship as it appeared in other parts of the world, such as East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Islamic civilization.

Editorial Board Linda Darling, University of Arizona (Ottoman Empire) Theresa Earenfight, Seattle University (Spain) Dorothy Ko, Barnard College (China) Nancy Kollman, Stanford University (Russia) John Thornton, Boston University (Africa and the Atlantic World) John Watkins (France and Italy)

Published by Palgrave Macmillan The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History By Charles Beem Elizabeth of York By Arlene Naylor Okerlund Learned Queen: The Imperial Image of Elizabeth I By Linda Shenk High and Mighty Queens of Early Modern England: Realities and Representations Edited by Carole Levin, Debra Barrett-Graves and Jo Eldridge Carney The Monstrous Regiment of Women: Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe By Sharon L. Jansen The Face of Queenship: Early Modern Representations of Elizabeth I By Anna Riehl Elizabeth I: The Voice of a Monarch By Ilona Bell Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth By Anna Whitelock and Alice Hunt The Death of Elizabeth I: Remembering and Reconstructing the Virgin Queen By Catherine Loomis Queenship and Voice in Medieval Northern Europe By William Layher The Foreign Relations of Elizabeth I Edited by Charles Beem

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd i

2/18/2011 6:20:13 PM

The French Queen’s Letters: Mary Tudor Brandon and the Politics of Marriage in Sixteenth-Century Europe By Erin A. Sadlack Three Medieval Queens (forthcoming) By Lisa Benz St. John Renaissance Queens of France (forthcoming) By Glenn Richardson

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd ii

2/18/2011 6:20:14 PM

THE FRENCH QUEEN’S LETTERS MARY T UDOR BRANDON AND THE POLITICS OF M ARRIAGE IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY EUROPE Erin A. Sadlack

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd iii

2/18/2011 6:20:14 PM

THE FRENCH QUEEN’S LETTERS

Copyright © Erin A. Sadlack, 2011. All rights reserved. First published in 2011 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978–0–230–62030–8 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sadlack, Erin A. The French queen’s letters : Mary Tudor Brandon and the politics of marriage in sixteenth-century Europe / by Erin A. Sadlack. p. cm. ISBN 978–0–230–62030–8 (alk. paper) 1. Mary, Queen, consort of Louis XII, King of France, 1496–1533. 2. Mary, Queen, consort of Louis XII, King of France, 1496–1533—Correspondence. 3. Marriage—Political aspects—Europe—History—16th century. 4. Chivalry— Europe—History—16th century. 5. Henry VIII, King of England, 1491–1547— Relations with French. 6. Queens—France—Biography. I. Title. DC108.S23 2011 944⬘.027092—dc22 [B]

2011000521

A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: April 2011 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd iv

2/18/2011 6:20:15 PM

To my family, most especially my mother Kathleen and my sister Meghan, with all my love

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd v

2/18/2011 6:20:16 PM

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd vi

2/18/2011 6:20:16 PM

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

ix

List of Abbreviations

xi

Introduction

1

1

A Queenly Education

17

2

Becoming the Queen

49

3

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

91

4 Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

119

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

163

Notes

197

Bibliography

245

Index

257

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd vii

2/18/2011 6:20:16 PM

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd viii

2/18/2011 6:20:16 PM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I

first encountered Mary’s writing over nine years ago in the course of my doctoral research on medieval and early modern women’s letters. Immersed in Mary Anne Wood’s remarkable work of scholarship, Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, I was immediately fascinated by the rhetoric of Mary’s convent threat. When I asked my director, Jane Donawerth, if Mary was really blackmailing Henry VIII of all people, she encouraged me to go to the manuscript source and find out. This book is the ultimate result of her suggestion. But between that first foray into manuscript studies and the publication of this volume lies the generous help of so many people. My heartfelt thanks go to Carole Levin and Charles Beem, the editors of the “Queenship and Power” series, for their unfailing support, helpful advice, and boundless enthusiasm for the project. I am especially indebted to Carole for so many years of encouraging mentorship. I am very grateful to my colleagues at Palgrave, Chris Chappell and Sarah Whalen, who patiently answered all my questions and shepherded the volume so well throughout the publication process. I also thank the reviewers who gave many useful suggestions for the book’s improvement. In addition, I am grateful to the Sixteenth Century Journal for allowing me to reprint sections of my essay, “Epistolary Negotiations: Mary the French Queen and the Politics of Letter-Writing,” which was published in the October 2010 volume; this material appears in paragraphs scattered throughout the book, especially the introduction and chapter 3. I have been blessed throughout my scholarly career with generous mentors. To my dissertation directors, Theresa Coletti and Jane Donawerth, I offer my deepest gratitude for all their wisdom, advice, time, and caring support that continues to this day. I am also greatly indebted to other teachers who shared their expertise over the years; Jo Eldridge Carney, Bill Sherman, David Norbrook, Sharon Achinstein, Donna Hamilton, Kent Cartwright, Frank Erath, and Cheryl Oram deserve special mention. I also wish to thank Margaret Hannay and Sara Jayne Steen for their encouragement. Given the extent of the research required for this book, I am especially grateful to the librarians who work at the British Library; the UK National Archives; the Queen’s College Library, Oxford; the Bodleian Library; the Morgan Library; the College of Arms; the Folger Shakespeare Library; the University of Maryland, College Park; and Marywood University. Among them I am particularly indebted to Laetitia Yeandle at the Folger for additional training in palaeography as well as Robert Yorke at the College of Arms and Amanda Saville at Queen’s College for much kindness in helping me to find the documents I needed. In addition, the staff at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France was enormously helpful in working with me to supply digital scans of the letters I needed. I could not have completed this project without generous funding. Marywood University graciously provided financial support for research and travel, as well

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd ix

2/18/2011 6:20:16 PM

x

Acknowledgments

as image and copyright costs. In addition, I am proud to acknowledge the support of the Cosmos Club Foundation’s Grants-in-Aid to Young Scholars Program and the Harmon-Ward Fellowship awarded by the English department at the University of Maryland. Many friends and colleagues have contributed to the completion of this work at various stages, and it is immeasurably better for their efforts. In particular, I want to thank Meg Forbes Pearson, who read every word of the manuscript (many of them twice or even thrice). Ann Claycomb and Kristen Deiter very kindly provided editing assistance and many productive suggestions for organization and avenues of inquiry. My undergraduate research assistants, Steven Natiello and Jonathan Najarian, were an enormous help, especially in assembling the bibliography. Erin Kelly, Deborah Uman, and the members of a workshop at the 2009 Attending to Early Modern Women Conference all offered insightful ideas. My Marywood colleagues have provided constant encouragement and advice, especially Laurie McMillan, Bill Conlogue, Helen Bittel, Agnes Cardoni, Deborah Brassard, Ann Bush, Mike Foley, Sr. Mary Ann Zimmer, and Laurie Cassidy, as well as Ann Cerminaro-Costanzi for all that and Italian translation besides. I also thank Jill Lynott, whose assistance on a myriad of details was invaluable, and David Crisci, Sr. Margaret Gannon, Nancy Maloney, and Ines Molinaro, who helped me to extend study abroad trips into research opportunities. Many of my students have discussed versions of this material; my thanks go especially to the 2010 English 360 students and English 495 senior seminar for their enthusiastic debates. Above all, for their friendship and willingness to serve as a sounding board for so many ideas, I am deeply grateful to Ryan and Ann Claycomb, Donna Packer-Kinlaw, Meg Pearson, Helen Hull, Brandi Adams, and Erin Kelly. Finally, it remains only to thank my family, the joy and strength of my life. Those who are blessed with big Irish families know how much support they give. To list all of them would be impossible, and although I wish to single out especially my godparents Peg Marshall and Ned Franco and my cousins Wayne, Kathy, Justin, and Kelly Brown, they know they are all in my heart. I also send loving thanks in particular to my dear father, Robert Sadlack, for his encouragement and affection throughout the writing of this book. My gratitude to my sister Meghan, my best friend, is beyond words. To her and my wonderful brother-inlaw Eric Byrne, and my simply marvelous nephew David, for all their love and support, I offer my heartfelt thanks. Last, I give my love and deepest thanks of all to my mother and best teacher, Kathleen Davern, whose grace, strength, wisdom, and compassion inspire and sustain me always.

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd x

2/18/2011 6:20:17 PM

A BBREVIATIONS

Addit. BL Cott. BNF Bodl. CA CB CSPM CSPS CSPV Diarii Eger. Harl. HMC L&P Letters Lives Morgan NA N&Q R3&H7 SP WQ

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd xi

Additional MS British Library Cotton MS Bibliothèque Nationale de France Bodleian Library College of Arms Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, by Steven Gunn Calendar of State Papers . . . Milan Calendar of Letters . . . Spain Calendar of State Papers . . . Venice I Diarii di Marino Sanuto Egerton MS Harley MS Historical Manuscript Commission Letters and Papers . . . of the Reign of Henry VIII. Volume numbers are in Arabic numerals; references are to item numbers, unless otherwise specified. Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies, by Mary Ann Everett Green, née Wood Lives of the Princesses of England, by Mary Ann Everett Green Morgan Pierpont Library National Archives (UK) Notes and Queries Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII State Papers Mary Tudor, White Queen, by Walter Richardson

2/18/2011 6:20:17 PM

9780230620308_01_prexii.indd xii

2/18/2011 6:20:17 PM

INTRODUCTION

Excerpt from “Marie the French Queene, to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolke,” in Englands Heroicall Epistles, by Michael Drayton, 15971: If with our love my Brother angry be, Ile say for his sake I first loved thee; And but to frame my liking to his minde, Never to thee had I beene halfe so kind. Should not the sister like as doth the brother, The one of us should be unlike the other Worthy my love, the vulgar judge no man, Except a Yorkist, or Lancastrian; Nor thinke that my affection should be set, But in the line of great Plantaginet. I passe not what the idle Commons say, I pray thee Charles make hast, and come away. To thee what’s England, if I be not there; Or what to mee is Fraunce, if thou not here; Thy absence makes me angry for a while, But at thy presence I must needsly smile. When last of mee his leave my Brandon tooke, Hee sware an oath, (and made my lyps the booke) Hee would make hast, which now thou doost denie, Thou art for sworne, ô wilfull perjurie. Sooner would I with greater sinnes dispence, Then by intreatie pardon thys offence. But yet I thinke, if I should come to shrive thee, Great were the fault that I should not forgive thee; Yet wert thou here, I should revenged be, But it should be with too much loving thee.

Helen and Paris. Antony and Cleopatra. Any list of great lovers, suggests poet and playwright Michael Drayton, would be incomplete without this pair: Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon. In fictionalizing the marriage of a Tudor princess to an English duke in his Englands Heroicall Epistles, Drayton casts the couple in the mold of Ovid’s classical heroes, depicting them as lifelong starryeyed, star- crossed lovers currently separated by the English Channel, with Mary impatiently waiting for her beloved to reclaim her after the death of her elderly husband Louis XII of France. The opening of Mary’s verse epistle compares the couple with the doomed Hero and Leander, while the closing invokes the first meeting of another pair of famous lovers whose play was printed the same year as Drayton’s poem. But where Romeo and Juliet “kisse by the booke,” Brandon makes Mary’s lips the book by which he swears.2 And in his prologue, Drayton

9780230620308_02_int.indd 1

2/18/2011 3:42:57 PM

2

The French Queen’s Letters

explains that he uses the word “heroical” for “them who for the greatnes of minde come neere to Gods” (fol. A2r). Theirs is thus an epic love story indeed. Drayton hardly stands alone in his romantic impulses. Novelists penned versions of the couple’s story as early as 1677, when the French writer Jean de Préchac wrote La princesse d’Angleterre, ou, La duchesse reigne, translated into English a year later as The English Princess, or the Duchess- queen. A ballad collected for publication in 1818, “A Song of an English Knight,” voices Mary’s distress over the difference between her rank and Brandon’s, then proclaims her determination to defy her brother the king: But let him say what pleaseth him, His liking I’ll forego, And chuse a love to please myself, Though all the world say no.3

Nor have modern media neglected the tale; adaptations, more or (usually) less accurate, range from the 1922 silent film When Knighthood was in Flower to the 1953 Disney movie The Sword and the Rose to the glamorous 2007 Showtime television series The Tudors.4 It is all too easy to romanticize Mary’s story: a beautiful princess forced to wed a much older man, tournaments where her English lover triumphs over his French rivals, a young widow defying her older brother—the king of England, no less—to marry for love. For all its fantastic elements, that story is a true one.5 Born March 18, 1496, Mary was the youngest surviving daughter of Henry VII, a king who sought to increase the stability of his crown by forming alliances with Spain, the Low Countries, and Scotland, alliances cemented with the marriages of his children.6 As a result, Mary was initially betrothed to Prince Charles of Castile. When ties weakened between Spain and England in 1514, the match was abandoned and, as Drayton notes, her brother Henry VIII swiftly married her to the “old and decrepite” French king Louis XII as part of a treaty ending the war between England and France.7 Given Louis’s age—fifty-two years to Mary’s eighteen—and ill health, Mary exacted a promise from Henry before leaving England that she would able to choose her second husband. The French king welcomed Mary with great ceremony and she was crowned queen of France on November 5, followed by a tournament in which Charles Brandon, the newly created Duke of Suffolk, jousted superbly.8 When Louis died on January 1, 1515, both Henry and the new French king, Francis, had their candidates for Mary’s hand, but Mary instead seized the opportunity to wed Brandon secretly when he returned to France to negotiate her dower rights. As a result of that defiance, Mary and Brandon had to mollify Henry’s considerable anger through a series of letters and, ultimately, promises of gold and jewels. After returning to England, the couple lived alternately on the duke’s estates and at court, where they frequently took part in tournaments, banquets, and other royal spectacles. Known always by her title, “the French queen,” Mary remained a sparkling feature of the English court until her displeasure at Henry’s affair with Anne Boleyn and her own ill health kept her at home. She died on June 24, 1533, leaving three children—Henry, Frances, and Eleanor—and the reputation of a virtuous queen who married one time for peace, a second time for love. But to stop there leaves the account incomplete at best. As compelling as they are, romantic portrayals obscure Mary’s role as a political figure, one whom poets celebrated as bringing peace between England and France. These storybook

9780230620308_02_int.indd 2

2/18/2011 3:42:57 PM

Introduction

3

romances overlook the princess who grew up watching her father and brother stabilize the new Tudor dynasty through an intricate web of marriage negotiations, discount the queen who successfully navigated the complex machinations of the French court, and most of all, ignore Mary’s awareness of the political ramifications of her choice to wed an English nobleman. At worst, they marginalize her, labeling her infatuated or hysterical.9 Drayton’s poem, for example, repeatedly infantilizes Mary; leaving Brandon for France, she compares herself to a “little infant that hath lost, / The thing where-with it was delighted most” (fol. 62v). Her kisses that appease Louis are like the “little babie” who “clip[s] the nurse” (fol. 63v). In these versions, Mary becomes simply the protagonist of a good story, but to dismiss her as such is to diminish her, and more, to neglect the wealth of evidence her life provides about early modern queenship, reading and writing practices, and the purpose of pageantry and spectacle at court. Archival research, especially the text of Mary’s letters, reveals a different woman altogether than the image her biographers have previously crafted. Mary was neither a weeping hysteric nor a love-struck romantic, but rather a queen who drew on two sources of authority to increase the power of her position: the conventions of early modern letter writing and the rhetoric of chivalry that imbued the French and English courts. By examining the events of Mary’s life through the lenses of her writing and period chronicles, I argue that Mary fully appreciated the political implications of her decisions and that she continually sought to increase her authority, authority she would ultimately use to fashion her own response to the politics of marriage in early modern Europe. Reading Mary’s life and letters within the context of her society’s political culture creates a new historical narrative, one that not only recognizes Mary as a savvy political player and an accomplished writer but also broadens our understanding of women’s paths to power in the early sixteenth century.

Writing and Reading Letters The sentimental version of Mary that has hitherto prevailed is due in no small measure to the ways that Mary’s previous biographers have read her letters as absolute fact, instead of recognizing that her letters are rhetorically crafted to represent herself and her ideas in the best possible fashion. This idea that historical letters have a fictive or literary quality is no longer revolutionary. Scholars such as Margreta de Grazia and Arthur Marotti have helped to challenge traditional categories of “history” and “fiction,” while Annabel Patterson’s study of Holinshed’s Chronicles underscores the need to read period histories themselves with a critical eye sensitive to the chronicler’s cultural context.10 Natalie Zemon Davis has extensively analyzed the ways that people shaped their renditions of events in their requests for pardon, while Sara Jayne Steen has noted the multiple roles women play in their letters as they interact with their audiences.11 Given such findings, to read Mary’s letters as precise historical record is to ignore the extent to which she shapes her letters to her own advantage. For instance, in the aftermath of Louis’s death, Mary asks Henry to permit the marriage with Brandon because the new French king Francis, whose penchant for beautiful women has been well documented, had been importuning her with a “seute” not in accordance “with my honoure” until she revealed her affections for the duke.12 Given that a good chivalrous king would be honor bound to protect his widowed sister, Mary must have believed this argument would resonate with Henry, especially since Brandon’s letters echo the phrase, that Francis’s harassment of Mary was

9780230620308_02_int.indd 3

2/18/2011 3:42:58 PM

4

The French Queen’s Letters

“non thyng to her honnar.”13 To appreciate the extent of Mary’s rhetorical skill, we first need to recognize that she is crafting a specific image of herself through the events she chooses to relate and the language with which she describes them. That Brandon replicates Mary’s wording is unsurprising, given that his letters reveal frequent evidence of collaboration with Mary. Sometimes each reports what the other has written, as when Brandon assures Henry, “Sire as sche has wretten to you of her oun hand sche es conttent to gyef you hall yt her grace shall have by the ryth of her wosbound [Sire, as she has written to you of her own hand, she is content to give you all that her grace shall have by the right of her husband].”14 When Mary talks about the disposition of her dower, she tells Henry, “I thynck my lord of sowffolke [Suffolk] wole write mor playndler to yowr grace than I do of thys maters.”15 The couple clearly discussed the content of their letters before writing to ensure the consistency and effectiveness of the rhetorical picture they were painting.16 They had no reason to suspect, however, that one line in a letter of Brandon’s would do more to shape history’s opinion about Mary than any other. Trying to justify the clandestine marriage to Henry, Brandon writes about their first private meeting in France: “I newar sawe woman so wyepe.”17 Walter Richardson, whose 1970 work Mary Tudor: The White Queen is the standard biography of Mary, embroiders on that line in this fashion: Doubt must have vanished when she saw him, for she spilled it all out in a frenzy of tears and passion: her fear of Louise, her alarm over Francis and his persistent threats of a forced marriage, and her desire to marry Brandon, himself. Though not an emotional man, he was deeply touched. The wild torrent of words, incoherent at the time, contained a store of information, and concealed within it he recognized a desperate determination that would brook no denial. Unsure of the proper response he wrote an undated and very studied letter to the King. (170)

Richardson grants that Brandon’s description of the scene was a calculated, carefully written missive, yet he never questions whether it was telling the truth. His account influences later writers. Maria Perry, who wrote the 1998 biography The Sisters of Henry VIII, quotes the “never saw woman so weep” line, then remarks, “It was the incontrovertible truth. Henry knew as well as Brandon what a torrent Mary could shed, when she wanted her own way” (111). Such characterizations of a hysterical Mary further explain why relatively few scholars until recently have given Mary’s actions and writing serious critical attention. While Mary may well have wept copiously on seeing Brandon, in the end it is far more interesting and productive to consider why the couple emphasizes this image of the king’s sister. In a series of letters where everything is so crafted, this too is a form of artful persuasion. Mary and Brandon, knowing the chivalric code of their time, might have chosen to emphasize a weeping, helpless Mary, desperate for Brandon’s aid, to help excuse their defiance of royal authority. If we take the letters at face value, we ignore how much Mary’s letters are crafted representations of events, thus missing an opportunity to study the sophisticated rhetoric of an early modern queen who pays deft attention to her audience. Part of Mary’s consciousness that the letter was a fiction of sorts can be traced to the epistolary examples she knew, both from her own experience and through her reading of works by Chaucer, Froissart, Malory, and Ovid, all of which embed

9780230620308_02_int.indd 4

2/18/2011 3:42:58 PM

Introduction

5

or are composed of letters that clearly shape their own conceptions of truth to influence their readers’ emotions or opinions. Mary’s letter writing is of particular note not only because of her persuasive skills but also because it is possible to trace much of her reading material and hence to track the influence of her reading on her letters.18 One of the first French–English textbooks, Lesclaircissement de la langue francoyse, was written by John Palsgrave, Mary’s tutor in the French language; in it, he describes the teaching methods he used for the princess, one of which involves quoting grammatical examples from popular works of French literature, including the Roman de la Rose, a French translation of Ovid’s Heroides, Jean Lemaire de Belges’s Epistres de l’amant vert, and several works by Alain Chartier and Jean Froissart. He also occasionally mentions the English writers Geoffrey Chaucer and John Lydgate. Together with the detailed research on the libraries of Henry VII and Henry VIII by James Carley, Gordon Kipling, and Janet Backhouse, there is ample evidence of the books with which Mary would have been familiar.19 In this biography, I demonstrate that reading Mary’s letters intertextually not only gives us a better sense of her rhetorical choices but also reveals much about the influence of reading on writing, as well as about women’s literary activity in early sixteenth-century England. Literary traditions of fictional women’s letters play a vital role in establishing the epistolary form as an appropriate vehicle for women’s writing. If we divorce the letter from those traditions, we cannot gain an accurate sense of women’s ability to speak through the medium of letters. For instance, Ovid’s Heroides, arguably the oldest literary depiction of women’s letter writing, intimates that the epistolary genre is well suited to women; nearly all of his heroines successfully employ letters to achieve their desires, whether they be to persuade a straying husband to return home or punish a betraying lover by publishing his infamy to the world. For example, Penelope utilizes the letter to find Ulysses and order him to come home. An audience familiar with Homer’s story would know that eventually the Greek hero returns on his own, but in the world that Ovid imagines, Penelope’s letter is what lures Ulysses back. Palsgrave’s textbook suggests that Mary knew this concept well; when he quotes Penelope, he chooses lines from the opening of her letter: “seul a toys suys ayes en souvenir.”20 The full context of this quotation is: Puis que tu es du retour paresseux O Ulixes de cueur tresangoisseux Penelope ceste epistre tenvoye Affin que tost tu te mettes en voye Ne rescrips rien, mais pense de venir Seule a toy suis ayes en souvenir. (Since you are lazy in returning, O Ulysses of the much-suffering heart, Penelope sends you this letter, in order that you will soon return. Write nothing back, but think of coming. I am keeping only you in mind.)21

Penelope fully expects her letter to travel where she herself cannot physically reach. Speaking for Penelope in the only way possible, the letter becomes a tangible reminder of all that her husband has missed. Ultimately, Penelope hopes that the letter will reforge a connection between them and bring him home. Reading

9780230620308_02_int.indd 5

2/18/2011 3:42:58 PM

6

The French Queen’s Letters

such lines would have impressed upon Mary the letter’s ability to convey a woman’s presence across vast distance. When Michael Drayton imitates Ovid to create a pantheon of English heroes and heroines, he too chooses moments when his lovers are parted, thus necessitating the use of letters to communicate the lover’s words. By doing so, he underscores further that the letter effectively conveys the immediacy of a woman’s voice without regard for considerations of time or space, allowing her to persuade her audience despite her physical absence. In the process, his verse epistles foster the illusion of a woman’s authentic voice, thereby reinforcing the connection between women’s writing and the epistolary genre. Since the classical era, epistolary theorists have considered such absence and presence as fundamental elements of the letter’s raison d’être. In Ad Familiares, Cicero claims that “the purpose in fact for which letter-writing was invented, is to inform the absent of what it is desirable for them to know, whether in our interest or their own.”22 For Cicero, a letter requires the separation of its sender and recipient. Other theorists push this definition further. Erasmus’s famous description of the letter as “a mutual exchange of speech between absent friends” follows Jerome, who wrote that “Turpilius the comedian said, ‘It [letter-writing] is the unique way of making absent persons present.’ ”23 The letter eliminates the distance between sender and recipient as each participant in the epistolary exchange imagines the presence of his or her counterpart. At the same time, the letter exists because of absence; the separation of a letter’s author and addressee necessitates their written communication. Ambiguously straddling the public/private divide, the letter creates an “absent presence” that effects an opportunity for early modern women writers to speak modestly in public.24 Although the reader knows that a woman has sent the letter, a piece of paper stands in her place, screening her from view. But the letter is not merely a screen. Rather, it inherently attracts attention because when a person reads a letter, she holds a private conversation with its author; unless someone else reads the letter, its sender’s identity and words remain hidden. In De conscribendis epistolis, Erasmus imagines the exchange of letters as “whispering in a corner with a dear friend, not shouting in the theatre, or otherwise somewhat unrestrainedly. For we commit many things to letters, which it would be shameful to express openly in public.”25 Building on Erasmus’s definition, Seth Lerer and Lisa Jardine both argue that the letter’s very intimacy cries out for attention and that Erasmus’s characterization of the letter only highlights its theatrical nature.26 The spectacle of watching someone read a letter initiates a voyeuristic desire to know the contents. Therefore, Mary could expect her epistolary communications with Henry and Louis to attract notice. Her ability to “speak” to each king privately through her letters confirmed her influence, augmenting her power at court. The scare quotes I used to mark the issue of speech in the previous sentence would perhaps have been more accurately applied to the word privately instead. Erasmus’s definition can mislead contemporary readers, who might expect that a letter therefore implies a message from the sender to the recipient alone. But letter writers in the sixteenth century would have expected that people other than the addressee would read a particular message; letters were to some degree always public, especially those letters written to the king.27 Archbishop Thomas Wolsey, Henry’s principal advisor, almost certainly read every letter Mary sent, and other councilors might also have seen her words. Undoubtedly familiar with such practices, Mary wrote her letters with both audiences in mind. Her salutations praise Henry effusively, thus establishing in writing a permanent record that Henry is

9780230620308_02_int.indd 6

2/18/2011 3:42:59 PM

Introduction

7

a good brother to her. Mary offers this testimony as a further gift for Henry that flatters his vanity, since he knew well that other people would read her tribute to his fraternal love. Such gestures mattered in an age where people expected their letters to act as public performance as well as private communication. The liminal public and private nature of the epistolary genre allows women writers to have a voice, yet because they remain screened, it also forestalls accusations of immorality. Jennifer Summit notes that “[u]nlike oratory, writing could take shapes that actually upheld the demands of female modesty, privacy, and chastity.”28 Though here Summit refers to Elizabeth I’s careful crafting of her image as a poet, her words are even more aptly applied to the letter. The letter acts as the sender’s voice, giving the sender a degree of influence; but because the sender is not immediately present and speaking, per se, she is protected from any negative association of speech with sexuality. In Drayton’s poem, Mary’s sexuality is a central feature of the epistle; the poet discreetly nods at the privacy of the marriage bed before titillating readers with spicy particulars: “And I could tell, if modestie might tell, . . . / To rest his cheeke, upon my softer cheeke, / Was all he had; and more he did not seeke” (fol. 63v). Mary assuages Brandon’s jealousy by taking pains to reassure him that her virginity remains intact, untouched by an aging French king’s “heatles fire.” Even the historical Mary’s letters reflect her society’s concern with her chastity; after the clandestine wedding, she is most anxious for Henry to realize that she has not acted out of “synswale apend[ite], [sensual appetite],” but out of fear that the factions on his Council would have prevented her marriage to Brandon.29 In this fashion, these two letters by Mary, one fictional and one historical, suggest the competing elements of a letter’s function—its ability to attract and yet deflect attention, to preserve modesty and yet to reveal secrets. The elements of epistolary theatricality and the elusiveness of the letter’s “absent presence” thus combine to fashion a genre that is receptive to the demands of female modesty, yet possesses a potent ability to attract an audience. Letters therefore reject a dichotomous gendering of public (masculine) and private (feminine) spheres. Given that scholars have long recognized the reductive nature of such a binary relationship, the epistolary genre holds particular import for early modern studies because extant letters demonstrate that women could exert political influence without physically venturing outside the domestic sphere.30 Recent scholarship on women’s letters by James Daybell, Jane Couchman, and Ann Crabb not only underscores how inappropriate are the traditional categories of public and private when applied to letters but also demonstrates how political a woman’s correspondence could be.31 Influenced by the examples of ruling monarchs such as Elizabeth I and Catherine de Médicis, modern readers may find it difficult to appreciate the authority of women such as Isabella d’Este, Marguerite de Navarre, Louise of Savoy, and Mary, who possessed power through birthright and marriage. Yet feminist scholarship such as Barbara Harris’s work on early modern noblewomen reminds us that women possessed multiple avenues to power even within patriarchal frameworks.32 Mary’s writing perfectly illustrates one of the varied means an early modern woman might employ to achieve political ends. Her numerous extant letters include missives to Henry and Wolsey about finding counselors to give her appropriate advice, attempting to arrange ransom for French prisoners of war, and obtaining patronage for the members of her entourage who had been dismissed by Louis. Her letters regarding the marriage to Brandon demonstrate a keen awareness of audience as she reminds Henry and

9780230620308_02_int.indd 7

2/18/2011 3:42:59 PM

8

The French Queen’s Letters

Wolsey of the machinations of Henry’s Council. Conscious of the importance of the lack of a male heir even in 1515, she blackmails Henry by threatening to join a convent if he will not let her marry “wer as my mynd is,” reminding him that both he and his realm would be sorry at such an outcome.33 These examples, and others like them, testify to her political acuity. Studying the politics of Mary’s epistolary negotiations thus reveals the myriad ways a sixteenth-century queen might attain more influence and, consequently, more power at court.

Chivalry, Romance, and Spectacle In fairness, if writers seem caught up in the fairy-tale version of Mary’s life, it is a slippage Mary herself encouraged by inhabiting roles from romance when the occasion suited her. Her father, Henry VII, deliberately fostered such ideas by deploying the rhetoric of chivalry to add standing to the new English regime; he consciously shaped the idea of the Tudor court as a new Camelot, going so far as to name his firstborn son Arthur. At the wedding ceremony of Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon in 1501, the knights glorified their prince with Arthurian pageantry at the jousts, a spectacle the five-year- old Mary witnessed.34 At that event, Sir Charles Brandon rode in “an oriental costume such as Sir Palomides might have worn in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur: ‘the guise of a Turk or a Saracen, with a white roll of fine linen cloth about his head, the ends hanging pendant wise.’ ”35 Records of later tournaments and masques in archival documents and period histories such as Edward Hall’s Chronicle indicate that Mary took frequent part in the pageantry and that such entertainments drew on the romance tradition shaped by writers such as Thomas Malory and printers such as William Caxton. Even before Mary was old enough to feature in court spectacles herself, she was surrounded by political pageantry. In 1501, the arrival of her sister-inlaw Catherine of Aragon was met by an extravagant celebration, the planning for which had begun in 1499. In fact, when word reached Isabella, Catherine’s mother, about the extent of the English preparations, she wrote to her ambassador, Dr. Rodrigo Gonzales de Puebla, to caution Henry against spending too much and to advise him to lavish his paternal love, not his treasury, upon her daughter.36 Despite Isabella’s warning, Catherine was greeted by a series of six fabulous pageants upon her entry into London. In the first, St. Katherine and St. Ursula greet her with the confident prediction that just as Prince Arthur will surpass the original King Arthur, so too will Catherine be a second Ursula.37 Progressing through the streets of the city, Catherine enters a lavishly decorated castle, complete with knights and “a rede dredfull dragon” and meets allegorical figures such as Vertue, Noblesse, and Pollici, who welcomes and compliments her “noblesse and vertue,” noting that “Ye seme right apte to have auctoryte / Within thys realme.”38 Such scenes come straight from the pages of Arthurian romance, a new Guinevere arriving in Camelot. Gordon Kipling claims that Catherine is not only a spectator but an actor, citing the scene in the second pageant when the gates of Castle Policy miraculously open on her arrival.39 Pollici wonders at the marvel, exclaiming, “What meaneth this? O now I se weell why: / The bright sterre of Spayne, Hesperus, on them shone.”40 The lines between reality and fantasy blur. Surrounded by English and Spanish nobility and clergy, Catherine addresses saints and allegorical figures, who confirm her (eventual) right to rule England. For this moment, Catherine’s role

9780230620308_02_int.indd 8

2/18/2011 3:42:59 PM

Introduction

9

as wife to England’s heir has been fused with the identity of a lady in a romance, endowing her with all the authority such a figure could wield. The pageants culminate in the princess’s ascension to a seat beside the Throne of Honor with her new husband Arthur. Catherine enters the presence of God, where a glorious choir of angels is singing. God exalts her, saying: Blissid be the frute of your bely, Your sustenuce and frutes shall encrease and multiplye, Your rebellious enemyes I shall put into your hande, Encreasyng in honour bothe you and your lande.41

Although God notes that this is the same blessing He gave the children of Israel, his remarks must have resonated with the audience. The Tudor claim to the throne had been challenged on more than one occasion by “rebellious enemyes,” and as part of the marriage negotiations, Ferdinand and Isabella received regular reports from their ambassadors about the imprisonment and eventual execution of the latest threat, the Yorkist imposter Perkin Warbeck.42 Other legitimate York heirs in exile represented continued danger from that front. In addition, God’s promise of children who would guarantee the succession into the next generation was also of vital import to the Tudor dynasty. On this happy occasion, little could Catherine have dreamt how much grief the failure of that promise would bring her. Such display was not mere propaganda; as Sydney Anglo reminds us, “magnificence and munificence were interpreted as the outward signs of real power.”43 Glenn Richardson carries that further, emphasizing that the diplomatic maneuvering linked to these spectacles “centred firmly on the values of personal honor enshrined in the chivalric code of the nobility which was a vital element of Renaissance kingship.”44 Their arguments are borne out by a letter written on July 10, 1517, by Francesco Chieregato, the English papal nuncio, to Isabella d’Este, the Marchioness of Mantua. He describes the pageants, banquets, and jousts at Henry VIII’s court, then comments: In short, the wealth and civilization of the world are here; and those who call the English barbarians appear to me to render themselves such. I here perceive very elegant manners, extreme decorum, and very great politeness; and amongst other things there is this most invincible King, whose acquirements and qualities are so many and excellent that I consider him to excel all who ever wore a crown; and blessed and happy may this country call itself in having as its lord so worthy and eminent a sovereign, whose sway is more bland and gentle than the greatest liberty under any other.45

The world of chivalry for which Don Quixote so longed still flourished in the early sixteenth century, and the monarch who could embody this rhetoric enhanced his or her standing in the court of European opinion. The extravagant welcome Henry VII devised for Catherine accords perfectly with this world view and signals the high value he placed on the Spanish alliance. For the five-year-old Princess Mary, watching “not in very opyn sight” with her mother, grandmother, sister, and other court ladies, this elaborate spectacle must have made an impression, as would her sister Margaret’s wedding to James IV of Scotland a year later.46 Like Catherine’s wedding to Arthur, Margaret’s marriage

9780230620308_02_int.indd 9

2/18/2011 3:42:59 PM

10

The French Queen’s Letters

established an alliance, this time to ensure the safety of England’s northern borders. John Younge, Somerset Herald, who recorded the festivities, notes Mary’s presence at the mass, which preceded multiple days of jousting, banquets, a pageant, and a morris dance. As the center of the celebration, the twelve-year- old Margaret awarded the prizes to those who had jousted best, among whom was the knight Charles Brandon, who “had right well justed.”47 At these events, Mary would have seen the chivalric romance made real: the glorification of the lady, the knights competing for her favor. More importantly, she would also have noted the prominence of the visiting Scots nobility, as well as emissaries from the Pope, Spain, France, and Venice, whose presence Younge carefully recorded in his official account.48 Henry’s lavish display was calculated to impress these ambassadors, but as Greg Walker’s work on political culture in the early modern court suggests, the underlying message of the various forms of display—from tapestries to tournaments—was not just for the court but also for the monarchs who sat at its center.49 Mary, just entering that world, would have seen the attentions paid her sister and sister-in-law and learned the kind of influence the rhetoric of chivalry could bring. Thus, when the crises surrounding her two marriages occurred, it would be easy for Mary to place herself in the chivalric tradition, to see herself as the heroine in a romance with gallant lovers fighting for her in tournaments and kings vying for her hand. Unlike Guinevere or Isoud, however, Mary behaved with scrupulous care for both her aged husband and her reputation, whatever hopes she may have entertained regarding her future. Although she remained faithful to Louis until his death, Mary would adhere to the code set by romances she knew, such as Froissart’s Meliador and Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, and attempt to shape events the way their heroines would. As the chapters that follow will demonstrate, throughout her life Mary enhanced her authority to act, to persuade nobles and even kings to do her bidding, by inhabiting the role of a lady in a romance.

The Politics of Marriage The extravagant rejoicings that welcomed Catherine of Aragon changed all too quickly to mourning. Arthur’s sudden death just five months after their wedding left Catherine’s status precarious. Once it was determined that she wasn’t carrying Arthur’s child, his brother Henry acceded to the title of Prince of Wales, and for the next seven years, Kings Henry and Ferdinand vacillated over whether the princess should be returned to Spain with her dowry or whether she would marry Prince Henry, or even King Henry himself, an idea Queen Isabella vetoed with disgust. Catherine was officially betrothed to the prince in 1503, but the marriage did not take place as scheduled, and the Spanish ambassador Don Gutiérre Gómez de Fuensalida wrote repeatedly of the princess’s increasingly poor treatment at the hands of the English, as did Catherine herself.50 An English translation of a letter she sent to her father in 1506 follows: Now I supplicate your highness, for the love of our Lord, that you consider how I am your daughter, and that after Him, I have no other good nor remedy, except in your highness; and how I am in debt in London, and this not for extravagant things, nor yet by relieving my own [people], who greatly need it, but only for food; and how the king of England, my lord, will not cause them [the debts] to be satisfied, although I myself spoke to him, and all those of his council, and

9780230620308_02_int.indd 10

2/18/2011 3:42:59 PM

Introduction

11

that with tears: but he said that he is not obliged to give me anything, and that even the food he gives me is of his good will; because your highness has not kept promise with him in the money of my marriage-portion . . . I have now sold some bracelets to get a dress of black velvet, for I was all but naked.51

Bearing in mind that Catherine paints her situation as blackly as possible to move Ferdinand to action and that the English in fact protested these complaints were exaggerated, there can be no doubt that these were difficult years for her and that Anglo- Spanish relations were strained to their limits.52 Records indicate that Mary spent a lot of time in the company of the Spanish princess during that period. For example, on August 10, 1504, the Duke of Estrada, writing to Queen Isabella about Catherine, reports a series of travels in which Henry took Catherine and Mary with him to Richmond, then Windsor for a two-week hunting trip, back to Richmond, then Westminster, then Greenwich, staying a few days to a week in each place.53 Another account of Mary and Catherine together comes in 1506 when Catherine’s sister Juana and brotherin-law Archduke Philip were forced to land in England to avoid shipwreck; an inspired Henry seized the occasion to impress the Castilian monarchs and invited them to Windsor. A chronicler records that on February 6, Henry invited Philip, who had traveled ahead of his wife, to see the ladies of the court and when Philip accepted, Henry brought him: wher was my Lady Princes [Catherine], and my Lady Mary the kinges daughter and diveres othere Ladyes and aftere the king of Casteelle had kyssed them and Comuned a whille with the kinge and the Ladyes all they Came in to the kinges dyninge Chambere wheare daunced my Lady Princes and a Spanishe Ladye with hir in Spanishe Arraye and aftere she had daunced ii or iii daunces she Lefte and then daunced my Ladye Mary And a Inglishe Lady with hir . . . and after that my Lady Mary had daunced ii or 3 daunced [sic] she wente and sate by my Lady Princes uppon the End of the Carpete which was under the Clothe of Estate and neare wher the kinge and the king of Casteele stoode.54

The next day, Catherine and Mary welcomed Juana together and then traveled to Richmond.55 Such constant association ensures that the two princesses were likely much attached to one another. When Ferdinand refused to ratify his grandson Charles of Castiles’s betrothal to Mary unless Catherine’s marriage to Henry was confirmed, he put Catherine in a terrible position.56 Nevertheless, she attended the betrothal; Pietro Carmeliano, the king’s Latin secretary, records that she entered the jousting at Mary’s side.57 Given that closeness, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mary would have been well aware of the difficulties that political negotiations caused Catherine throughout this time. As a result, Mary could see that while chivalric traditions might elevate a lady, she would be foolish to rely on that rhetoric alone as a source of authority, especially when contending with kings and marital alliances. Catherine’s situation provided several other object lessons for Mary to bear in mind. First, Mary witnessed the problems occasioned by language: Catherine complained to her father as late as 1506 that she neither comprehended nor spoke English well.58 Although she could use Latin or French to communicate and was learning English gradually, the language barrier must have constantly underscored her difference from the English court.59 The presence of her Spanish ladies-in-waiting, particularly her close friend Maria de Salinas, was essential for

9780230620308_02_int.indd 11

2/18/2011 3:43:00 PM

12

The French Queen’s Letters

companionship but did not assist Catherine in creating a network of allies among the English nobles. In addition, Mary may have noted Catherine’s difficulty in finding reliable advice. Catherine argued frequently with the different ambassadors her father sent, first writing to her father that he should dismiss de Puebla and find someone who would “be a true servant of your highness.”60 When the new ambassador, Fuensalida, arrived, Catherine argued with him in turn, sometimes over her choice of confessor, whom Fuensalida believed was giving her poor advice, and other times over his tactics in dealing with the English king. Such difficulties enhanced Catherine’s isolation and frustration. A third lesson for Mary lay in the value of access to the king. When Ferdinand gave Catherine credentials as an ambassador in 1507, he not only managed to send her money to pay her debts in the guise of a salary but also ensured her entrée to Henry’s presence.61 Acting in this capacity, Catherine negotiated her marriage to the prince while also conferring with the king about Mary’s betrothal to Prince Charles and King Henry’s potential marriage to her widowed sister Juana. Two letters Catherine wrote to her father in 1507 on the subject of the latter match further illustrate how a woman could use the epistolary medium to her benefit. The first letter, which would have been shown to Henry or his advisors, favors the king’s marriage to Juana, while another letter, presumably delivered by the same courier to preserve the secrecy of its existence, condemns the match. In the second, Catherine writes disgustedly of the proposed marriage, “I consider such things improper,” then speculates that her father is only entertaining the idea in order to entice Henry to finalize her marriage to his son.62 Sending multiple letters or writing in code, as she often did, allowed Catherine to speak freely and thus to negotiate from a position of greater power. While Mary almost certainly did not know the details of this exchange, Catherine’s letters illustrate some of her culture’s epistolary practices, conventions that Mary would have known. In addition, Catherine’s example would have proved to her that in this culture, access to the monarch meant access to power, however that access could be achieved. If Mary had any doubts, Catherine’s situation provided ample proof of a royal marriage’s political nature. Henry VII’s refusal to allow the final wedding ceremony between his son and Catherine opened up speculation about other potential alliances. Were young Henry to wed Marguerite d’Angoulême, peace with France would be in the offing; alternately, Emperor Maximilian proffered further ties to the Low Countries. With Mary betrothed to Charles of Castile, Maximilian’s grandson, Henry VII might also consider Margaret, Maximilian’s daughter, for himself and Eleanor, Charles’s sister, for Prince Henry. But when Henry VIII acceded to the throne in 1509, one of his first acts was to marry the Spanish princess, indicating his choice to remain firmly aligned with both Spain and the Low Countries, an alliance already begun with Mary and Charles. In doing so, Henry established favorable conditions for his plan to assert his claim to the French throne. In time, this alliance would in fact lead to war against France. Catherine thus became the living symbol of Henry’s Spanish allegiance. Yet ultimately, Catherine’s case demonstrates the extraordinary difficulties a queen faced in being the living link between two countries. Her role was not merely symbolic; she provided each monarch with an ambassador who possessed a unique tie to the other monarch and therefore unique opportunities for persuasion. Moreover, aside from the genuine affection Henry may have felt for her, it was important that he perform publicly his care for her happiness in England; such attention illustrated how highly he esteemed Spanish ties. Her presence was

9780230620308_02_int.indd 12

2/18/2011 3:43:00 PM

Introduction

13

therefore essential to the success of an alliance. Yet it was a delicate balance for any queen to achieve: to find a way to assimilate into a new court, to be fully committed to the welfare of that realm while still representing the interests of her native country. By watching Catherine rise and fall and rise again, Mary learned much about the obstacles and opportunities she would face when leaving England for marriage to a foreign prince. It is clear that Mary knew that her value to England lay in her ability to secure and maintain alliances between realms; to focus solely on the romance with Brandon is therefore to misread her role in the new Anglo-French coalition against Henry’s erstwhile allies. In fact, poets celebrated Mary’s marriage to Louis with extravagant comparisons to the Virgin Mary, suggesting that a Mary would bring peace to the world again by ending hostilities between England and France. Yet, as the potential mother of a son and heir, Mary would have had a difficult role in Louis’s court, all the more so given the presence of the existing heir, Francis of Angoulême, the king’s cousin and son-in-law, and his powerful family. Mary’s letters to Henry describing her acquiescence to the marriage indicate that she knew full well how important this marriage was to England and how vital it was for her to assume some of the responsibility of safeguarding English interests in Europe. Her letters also indicate her understanding of the political machinations of the court. For example, her fight to retain her advisor, Jane Guildford, who was dismissed by Louis, indicates her appreciation of the importance of having experienced counsel in navigating French politics. She also tried to do favors for members of the French nobility, explicitly stating her desire to impress them with her influence over her brother Henry. Mary might have recognized the value of emulating a romance when presiding over tournaments, but she was also mindful of the reality of a complex system of political patronage. In light of Mary’s education and experience in France, I consider her decision to wed Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk, a conscious political choice. Mary was well aware that both she and Brandon had personal and political value to Henry. In an age that set great store by pageantry and display, she knew their consequence in the eyes of the world. Celebrated for her beauty, charm, and wit throughout Europe, Mary would bring that reputation back to the court of England, enhancing its cultural standing. As one of Europe’s most honored knights, Brandon offered similar enhancement. On a personal level, both she and Brandon genuinely cared for Henry, who reciprocated their affection and enjoyed the stimulation of their presence at banquets and tournaments. Moreover, their loyal support would be a particularly valuable gift to a monarch whose control over his nobles was yet at issue. None of these motivations—creating alliances, bolstering Henry’s authority, giving birth to a potential heir—negated Mary’s wish to marry for love. But neither did marrying for love negate the politics of her decision to wed Charles Brandon. History has relegated Mary to virtual obscurity; the events of her life merely make a good story, a woman who used tears to get her own way and marry for love. Such a verdict fails to recognize that her second marriage was a conscious political action on her part and that her letters were carefully crafted arguments designed to convince her brother that her choice was just—and more, hers to make. That Mary’s rhetoric eventually succeeded in enhancing her political capital in France, in mollifying Henry’s anger, and in maintaining her position as an important English noblewoman indicates how vital epistolary communication could

9780230620308_02_int.indd 13

2/18/2011 3:43:00 PM

14

The French Queen’s Letters

be for both personal and national affairs. Reading her actions and letters reveals the complex negotiations of a Renaissance queen shaping the events of her day. Considering Mary as the political figure she was gives scholars of early modern culture a better understanding of women’s influence on history. For the events of Mary’s life were not merely the fodder for a romantic early modern soap opera; her choices represent her response to the politics of kingdoms. In reflecting on a life such as Mary’s, documents that place her within her cultural context, such as letters and period chronicles, provide a way to recognize the political nature of Mary’s actions. By considering how she tried to frame her decisions and how her contemporaries read her actions, we can gain invaluable insight into early modern queenship and politics. Therefore, in the chapters that follow, I emphasize the importance of documentary evidence by opening each chapter with a text from the period—sometimes chroniclers’ accounts, sometimes Mary’s own writing. Through that lens, I read the events of her life, with each chapter focusing on a different aspect of Mary’s experiences. Chapter 1, “A Queenly Education,” uses records of Mary’s reading and of her participation in tournament spectacles to detail her education and early experiences of court life. The fictional letters Mary read provided her with models of behavior, thus teaching her to see the value of epistolary conventions in enhancing her arguments. Moreover, the elaborate arrangements for Mary’s initial betrothal to the Prince of Castile and her roles in tournament pageantry underscored the close connection between the political and the personal, preparing her to understand how each of her actions would be inextricably linked to national affairs and showing her how to inhabit chivalric roles to negotiate from a position of greater power. Chapter 2, “Becoming the Queen,” details the political maneuvering that led to Mary’s wedding to the French king Louis XII, the spectacles surrounding her wedding and coronation, and the strategies that the new queen employed to garner influence in the French court. Taken all together, the poetry invoking Mary as a peace-bringer comparable to the Virgin Mary, the letters written to her, records of the tournament that took place in France, and the letters Louis wrote about her all indicate that Mary was able to draw on the rhetoric of chivalry to begin to establish herself as an important player in French politics. Her own letters establish that she understood the political realities of her role and that she consistently sought to increase her influence, often by using letters to manipulate situations to her benefit. Continuing the emphasis on her letters, chapter 3, “Marrying Where ‘my mynd is,’ ” focuses on Mary’s rhetoric in the aftermath of Louis’s death, the rumors of Henry’s negotiations for a new royal marriage, and the machinations that led to her not-quite-secret marriage to Charles Brandon. Analyzing Mary’s arguments reveals her awareness of her political importance to England and to Henry in particular. The chapter also situates Mary and Brandon’s letters within the context of early modern epistolary practices to consider how the couple sought to obtain Henry’s forgiveness by crafting their letters to create a public position that would enable Henry to pardon their defiance while preserving his own pride. Thus I refute earlier readings of their letters that have led to the depiction of Mary as a hysterical, weeping woman. Mary’s own complex negotiations with Wolsey help to contradict this charge. In a draft letter that survives with Wolsey’s alterations to Mary’s language, we can see how he mitigates the strength of her rhetoric, reducing her position from affectionate sister to humble suitor. He then alters a

9780230620308_02_int.indd 14

2/18/2011 3:43:00 PM

Introduction

15

sentence in which she proposes to give Henry half of the gold plate and jewels in her dower by changing half to all.63 Though the final draft of the letter does not survive, one of Mary’s indentures later promises that in the event of her death, any remaining jewels and gold in her possession will revert to Henry to satisfy her remaining debts.64 Such documents prove the extent of Mary’s political shrewdness. Finally, I build on her arguments to consider fully other political implications of the circumstances of Mary’s second marriage. The last chapter, “Always the French Queen: Identity Politics,” argues that Mary continually emphasized her identity as the French queen to enhance her standing in the English court—her letters always ending with her signature “Mary the French queen.” Her presence at court celebrations, diplomatic events such as the Field of Cloth of Gold, and the pomp and circumstance surrounding the birth of her son, a potential heir to the throne, all act as evidence of Mary’s continuing status and influence, as does her ongoing epistolary relationship with Wolsey, from whom she sought patronage for former servants and assistance in negotiating the payment of her French dower monies. Ultimately, after looking at the evidence of Mary’s objections to Henry’s wedding to Anne Boleyn not long before her own death in 1533, I contend that Mary remained an important member of the English court throughout her life, one worthy of consideration in her own right. Even romantic interpretations of Mary’s story such as Drayton’s version cannot avoid politics. His fictional Mary writes of Wolsey’s machinations, the failure of Maximilian’s alliance with Henry, the way that her marriage brings peace. Drayton’s poem also highlights the importance of masques and tournaments, pageantry and display, as his Mary breathlessly recounts Brandon’s exploits on and off the tournament field where the duke outfights and outclasses the flower of French nobility, a characterization certain to please Drayton’s English audience. Moreover, Mary’s confidence in her ability to persuade Henry to pardon them both conveys the power of a woman’s rhetoric. But above all, the poem underscores the power of letters to convey Mary’s voice, not just across the distance of space, but across time, to speak to us still today. In the Confessio Amantis, another text Mary likely knew, John Gower relates the story of Apollonius of Tyre, in which a king asks his daughter which of three noble suitors she wants to marry.65 Instead of answering her father directly, Thaise writes a letter because she is ashamed to speak aloud her preference for a different man altogether: Apollonius. Only “in writinge” she says, “it mai be spoke.”66 The same remains true for Mary, that in writing she might speak. Her letters were designed to fashion an identity that would command respect for her person and her choices. And although she might never have envisioned twenty-first- century overhearers, nonetheless, given the sophistication of her rhetoric and the evidence of her political maneuvering, Mary’s letters still merit our respect and attention for what they teach about early modern queenship and power.

9780230620308_02_int.indd 15

2/18/2011 3:43:00 PM

9780230620308_02_int.indd 16

2/18/2011 3:43:00 PM

CHAPTER 1

A QUEENLY EDUCATION

Excerpt from “The Justes of the Month of May,” printed by Wynkyn de Worde, 15071: And as touchynge this lady soverayne Had suche beaute it wolde an herte constrayne To serve her though he knewe to lese his payne She was so shene She and her servauntes clad were all in grene Her fetures fresshe none can dyscryve I wene For beaute she myght well have ben a quene She yonge of aege Was set moste goodly hye upon a stage . . .

Set high upon a stage—This description of Mary’s role in the tournament pageantry that took place at Kennington in 1507 seems particularly apt, given the way it presages her lifelong presence on the international stage of sixteenthcentury court politics. This poem and its companion, “The Justes of the Month of June,” record Mary’s position at the center of the tournament’s conceit. Standing on a flower-strewn stage, acting the part of the Queen of May, Mary issues the challenge, receives still more floral tributes from the knights, and rewards the winner with a ring. At the age of eleven, she is already participating in the chivalric rhetoric of the Tudor court, already starting to learn how the precepts of chivalry could be used to upset traditional gender hierarchy. The June tournament carries this rhetoric further, explicitly linking the knights to Arthurian pageantry by explaining that this joust is held to commemorate the similar activities of the Round Table and therefore to win like honor. Mary no longer plays a fictional May Queen, but rather calls the knights together in her own name, blurring the boundaries between chivalric fantasy and reality. The poem then transforms Mary into national symbol by underscoring her identity as a Tudor princess: Frome this royall reed rose and stately floure And from the whyte of all vertue myrroure This yonge lady This confortable blossome named Mary Spronge is to all Englondes glory With both roses ennued [enewed] moost swetely By dame nature That every thynge lyvynge hath in her cure But whan she made this propre portrayture

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 17

2/18/2011 3:44:15 PM

18

The French Queen’s Letters She dyde that myght be done to creature And not onely For excellent byrthe but surmountynge beauty the worlde of her aege moost womanly Lyke to be to pryncesses exemplary For her vertue.2

In these lines, the poet places Mary, as Tudor rose, at the heart of the court spectacle. Sprung from the white rose and the red, “this comfortable blossom” symbolizes the houses of York and Lancaster united in her person and renewed “to all England’s glory.” Today, historical knowledge of the success of the Tudor dynasty makes it all too easy to forget that Henry VII’s claim to the throne was based on the slimmest of threads, all the more so after the death in 1503 of his wife Elizabeth, whose status as daughter of the Yorkist King Edward IV helped bolster public perception of the legitimacy of Henry’s reign.3 The rhetoric in the “Justes of May and June” reminds the noble audience that Mary, and by extension her brother Henry, possessed a blood claim derived from both rival houses. The work of many scholars, including Gordon Kipling, Sydney Anglo, and Kevin Sharpe, has well established that such use of spectacle constitutes what today would be called propaganda.4 However, it is also well established that propaganda can be disrupted, co-opted, misread, or even re-read in a myriad of different ways. Although this tournament pageantry constituted part of an overall campaign to establish the greatness of the Tudor regime, its depiction of queenly authority in medieval romance simultaneously sent subtle messages asserting the power of women who successfully inhabit these chivalric roles. Participation in such spectacles therefore became a vital aspect of Mary’s educational experience. In this world, where knights beseeched her permission to act, her virtue, birth, and beauty were commodities that enabled her to become an authority with the ability to help secure her father’s hold on the realm. In this fashion, the tournament pageantry provided another sort of schooling, one that prepared Mary to exercise power on the broader stage of European politics. In her alterego of the May Queen, Mary modeled for herself the kinds of strategies a queen could employ to expand her influence over others. For instance, since a letter from the May Queen summoned the knights to the tourney, Mary experienced firsthand the authority a woman’s letter could convey.5 The allegorical monarch’s epistle announces she has chosen to reward the kingdom for its deeds: “this noble Realme of Englonde hath long flowryd in honour by conqueste of warre and high Actes of Armes which We Regestyrde in the noble howse of Fame to the great honour therof and perpetuall memory to the worldes ende” (fol. 124r). Furthermore, in order to encourage people “to Avoyde Idelnes and other vices therto belongyng” she “hath devysed pastyme for lusty folkes duryng our tyme of may” and has sent two of her servants to answer all challengers in order “to gyve exercise to them that honour desyreth and to make folkes more Apte to serve ther prince when cawses shall Require,” explicitly highlighting the overlap of moral, political and chivalric discourse (fol.124r-v). The May Queen’s authority is absolute as she promises that “delygens now in our service shall shortly brynge them to the presens of more honour and thankes” (fol. 124v). Through this power to summon, to inspire virtue, and to reward achievement, Lady May claims power over each individual knight’s honor, resulting in direct impact on the security of the kingdom.

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 18

2/18/2011 3:44:16 PM

A Queenly Education

19

Although the occasion and writer belong to the realm of literary spectacle, the letter nevertheless mimics traditional epistolary conventions. It contains a traditional salutation in which the May Queen announces her title and sends greeting to all the noble men “desyrus of honour.” In addition, the closing notes that the orders have been “yeven under our Signet at our castell of comphort in our citie of Solas,” mirror epistolary practices of the day (fol 124v). This overlap blurs the boundaries of the literary and the historical, perhaps to suggest to the world that England’s glory is truly epic. But the fluidity of these boundaries also suggests that the characters in courtly romance serve as models for their real-life counterparts. The May Queen may have been allegorical, but the very real Tudor princess enacting her would have experienced the authority her alterego wielded and recognized that she could employ the rhetorical strategies of fictional letters in her own writing to convey subtle messages or to enhance the quality of her arguments. Through her involvement in such pageantry, Mary learned that chivalric discourse could create a rhetorical space receptive to women, one that might be used to garner political and social influence in defiance of strictures subordinating women to patriarchal authority. Because her experience of courtly spectacle became an important element of her self-fashioning as a queen, analyzing the nature of Mary’s participation provides valuable insights into the exercise of early modern queenship. Therefore this chapter defines education broadly to include the ways Mary’s life experiences prepared her to understand the politics of marriage and encouraged her to use the dual rhetoric of chivalry and epistolarity to enhance her authority as a queen. It begins with her early education, taking into account her schooling in the courtly arts and considering how such lessoning groomed Mary for display before King Philip of Castile, a show that ultimately paved the way for her betrothal to his son Charles. Moving chronologically, it examines her formal education with her tutor John Palsgrave, a record of whose teaching includes texts featuring numerous examples of women’s involvement in politics as well as further lessons about the uses of letter writing. Next, the chapter explores Mary’s life at her brother’s court, particularly with regard to her experience of chivalric romance. It then demonstrates how the preparations for Mary’s marriage to Charles of Castile both reflected and influenced relations between England, Spain, France, and the Low Countries. Ultimately, it argues that all Mary’s experiences prepared her to understand that her personal affairs were intimately connected to the politics of nations. Studying the extensive preparations made for Mary’s debut on the international stage reveals how an upbringing steeped in the propaganda of chivalric spectacle helped shape Mary’s ability to meet the demands of queenship later in life.

Mary’s Early Education After Mary’s mother Elizabeth of York passed away in 1503, Sir Thomas More commemorated her death in his poem, “A Rueful Lamentation,” in which he imagines the queen bidding farewell to her loved ones.6 After charging her husband Henry VII to “supply the mother’s part” as well as the father’s, Elizabeth addresses each of her children individually, telling Margaret how she missed her after the girl left England to marry James IV of Scotland, saying good-bye to Catherine of Aragon, wishing “increase of honor” for “her loving son” Henry,

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 19

2/18/2011 3:44:16 PM

20

The French Queen’s Letters

then blessing the seven-year-old Mary: “Adieu, my daughter Mary, bright of hue. / God make you virtuous, wise, and fortunate” (lns. 48–67). In his depiction of Elizabeth’s wish for Mary, More broadly outlines early modern ideals of queenship. The real Elizabeth would have sought to inculcate the first two qualities— virtue and wisdom—in her daughter through careful education; for fortune she could only offer prayers. More’s rhetoric is designed to remind his readers of the transitory nature of this world and the inevitability of death as he finishes each stanza “for lo now here I lie.” At the same time, he portrays an intimate relationship between the Tudor queen and her children to render her death all the more poignant, his lamentation all the more affecting. Yet evidence suggests that More’s characterization of a close royal family has some basis in reality. The humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus gives this account of his 1499 visit to Eltham Palace, where the younger Tudor siblings lived most often: I was staying at lord Mountjoy’s country house when Thomas More came to see me, and took me out with him for a walk as far as the next village, where all the king’s children, except prince Arthur, who was then the eldest son, were being educated. When we came into the fall, the attendants not only of the palace but also of Mountjoy’s household were all assembled. In the midst stood prince Henry, then nine years old, and having already something of royalty in his demeanour, in which there was a certain dignity combined with singular courtesy. On his right was Margaret, about eleven years of age, afterwards married to James, king of Scots; and on his left played Mary, a child of four. Edmund was an infant in arms.7

For Henry to have been brought up with his sisters in this fashion is surprising, given that typical early modern educational practices dictated boys be educated separately from their sisters (as in the case of their older brother Arthur).8 That Henry remained with his siblings helps to explain the origins of the affection he and Mary shared, but more importantly, it helps provide evidence of the atmosphere in which Mary lived. Henry himself was given a thorough education by the poet John Skelton, who introduced the young prince to “the muses nine” as well as assigning him treatises on morality, chivalry, and the responsibilities of a prince.9 After Arthur’s death, the humanist scholars John Holt and William Hone carried Henry’s education further, giving him a thorough grounding in Latin and classical texts.10 Although Mary had her own schoolmaster, Naomi Miller and Naomi Yavneh point out that even siblings separated from one another could have a strong impact on each other’s learning; Mary therefore probably absorbed some of the same material that Henry did.11 Some overlap would stem from their mother’s influence; Elizabeth of York almost certainly oversaw aspects of her children’s formal education. For instance, David Starkey notes that she may well have taught her offspring to write, since letters in Mary’s and Henry’s hands are markedly similar to the few extant examples of their mother’s handwriting.12 Elizabeth would also have made sure that they were raised according to the Catholic religious values of the day; included in her Privy Purse accounts is a record of payment of twelve pence for a letter of pardon for Mary during the Pope’s Jubilee Year.13 Such teaching would accord with social custom and began when noble children were young, observes Barbara Harris, citing documentary evidence of the ubiquity

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 20

2/18/2011 3:44:17 PM

A Queenly Education

21

of primers and psalters as well as a fifteenth- century letter containing parental boasting about a four-year- old girl’s ability to read.14 In addition to Elizabeth’s lessons, Mary’s grandmother, Margaret Beaufort, who was well known for her piety and her patronage of scholarship, may also have provided access to popular secular and devotional works.15 Mary was definitely taught to speak French fluently; perhaps she was given some of the basic principles by scholar Giles Duwes, who taught her brother Henry and later wrote a French grammar textbook. In 1498, a “French maiden,” almost certainly Jane Popincourt, was engaged as a companion to converse with Mary to give her practice in the rudiments of the language.16 Then in 1512, the sixteen-year- old princess studied formally under John Palsgrave to perfect her knowledge of the language.17 Her knowledge of Latin is a more complicated issue; she may have had limited knowledge of the language, enough to at least recognize phrases from prayers in her Book of Hours.18 Ample evidence exists of the reading culture in which Mary grew up and the books to which she had access, including the books in her father’s libraries. Henry VII may have collected books for display to enhance his reputation for learning and chivalry, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t also read them.19 The French ambassador Claude de Seyssel noted that the king liked to read (and listen to) “stories and other things appertaining to a noble and wise prince.”20 Moreover, he allowed others to do likewise. The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne records that Henry attempted to stave off Catherine of Aragon’s homesickness by inviting her to read from his collection: “he curtesly lete desire and calle unto him the Princes and her ladies with dyvers ladies of Englond and brought them to a lybrary of is, wherin he shewed unto her many goodly pleasaunt bokes of werkes full delitfull, sage, mery, and also right cunnyng, bothe in Laten and in Englisse” (77). Mary, who frequently traveled with Catherine, surely would have enjoyed the same access when in residence at Richmond. A list of the books at Richmond catalogued in 1535 includes chronicles of England, France, and Pisa; general histories, such as lives of Caesar and Alexander; classical texts by Lucan, Ovid, Caesar, Josephus, Terence, Boethius, and Suetonius; a number of religious tomes and bibles, including the Wycliffe English Bible; and treatises on government.21 The literary works also comprise a French translation of Boccaccio’s Decameron, Guido delle Colonne’s History of the Destruction of Troy, the Romance of the Rose, and numerous works by Alain Chartier. Several texts pertain specifically to women’s lives, including Christine de Pizan’s letter of advice from the goddess Othea to the Trojan hero Prince Hector, Epistre d’Othea; Renaud de Louens’ account of the wise counsel of Prudence, a book that had served as the source of Chaucer’s Melibee; as well as French translations of Boccaccio’s account of the lives of famous (and infamous) women, De mulieribus claris; and Petrarch’s long-suffering Griselda. There is also a broad selection of chivalric romances, including legends of Apollonius of Tyre, Cleriadus and Meliadice, the four sons of Aymon, Melusine, several Arthurian knights, and mythological heroes such as Hercules and Jason. For Mary’s grandmother, as well as for her father and brother, literature served as a means of teaching the chivalrous behavior expected of the royal house.22 Such beliefs led them to collect this wide range of romances in addition to the chronicles and religious texts in their libraries.23 Some of these books would have traveled as the king moved to different residences; for instance, Mary’s brother Henry brought with him an eclectic collection, including a number of theological, musical, and medical texts.24 Years later, so did Henry’s wives,

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 21

2/18/2011 3:44:17 PM

22

The French Queen’s Letters

who even wore small girdle books bound in velvet containing devotional texts and romances as part of their ornamentation.25 Mary therefore had access to as wide a range of materials as her interests dictated. What those were has not been recorded, although almost certainly she would have read religious tracts and prayed using a Book of Hours.26 Chivalric romance was popular amongst nobles of both sexes and references to classical heroes such as Hercules abounded on tapestries and in tournament pageantry.27 Moreover, the English belief in the national myth that traced their ancestry to Brutus, the descendant of the Trojan prince Aeneas, ensured general familiarity with the Trojan War and its aftermath, including the story of the tragic queen Dido.28 Looking at the example of Mary’s grandmother Margaret Beaufort demonstrates the broad range of a woman’s potential reading interests. Margaret’s will indicates that in addition to a variety of devotional texts, she possessed Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, a volume of Gower, (perhaps the Confessio Amantis), the Siege of Troy, a volume of Boccaccio, a “french booke” prefaced by Genesis, and a volume of Froissart’s Chronicles.29 She also owned “a prynted booke which is callid Magna carta in frensch”30 She herself translated The Mirror of Gold for the Sinful Soul and the fourth book of The Imitation of Christ. Books dedicated to her include the romance Blanchardyn and Eglantine and the religious text Scala Perfectionis, (The Scale of Perfection), and Wynkyn de Worde ascribed his choice to print Sebastian Brant’s satire The Ship of Fools to her as well. She also sponsored the printing of The Fifteen Oes, a book of prayers attributed to St. Bridget of Sweden.31 Additionally, Margaret received books as bequests; her mother-in-law, Anne Neville, had left her a copy of Legenda Sanctorum, a book of saints’ lives (translated into English) as well as a French translation of the Latin poet Lucan’s works.32 In 1472, Anne Vere bequeathed Margaret a copy of Christine de Pizan’s Epistre d’Othea.33 Margaret’s collection therefore indicates the kind of books that women in the reading community to which Mary belonged would have read. If Mary ever read her grandmother’s copy of Christine’s Othea (or either of the two copies in the library at Richmond), she would have learned how such literature demonstrates the use of women’s letters for political purposes.34 Othea is a complicated work; Christine claims that she discovered the text of a letter from the goddess Othea to Prince Hector, and as a scholar studying the text, she glosses the verses with allegorical readings instructing her readers how to interpret the goddess’s advice and apply it to their own lives. At its simplest level, the book represents a goddess of wisdom teaching a man how to live and govern well. She argues that if he listens to her, he will achieve greatness: Because I know that you will always be The most valiant among the valiant and will have Above all others the most renown, Provided that I be loved by you.35

Within the world she imagines, Othea’s prediction comes true; Hector was acknowledged as one of the greatest princes in history because he was both noble and wise, qualities nurtured in him by a goddess. More importantly, the letter’s audience extends far beyond Hector; the popularity of the work in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries as a manual on chivalry suggests that many other nobles read Othea’s words of guidance. Since

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 22

2/18/2011 3:44:17 PM

A Queenly Education

23

Christine’s scholarly glosses help readers apply Othea’s advice to their lives, they are effectively being taught by female authorities—one real and one imagined— how to emulate a great man. And not merely any man, but the Trojan prince Hector, whom national myth claimed as the forefather of the kings of France. Christine thus claims an enormously influential role for women as teachers and counselors of kings and by extension affirms a woman’s right to use letters to accomplish political ends.36 Given Mary’s access to multiple copies of this work, she may well have been influenced by the French poet’s claims on behalf of her sex. Yet whether or not Mary read Othea, the evidence of her schooling ultimately suggests that it is reasonable to conclude that the princess was well taught, although there is no indication that Mary was the exceptional scholar her nieces Mary and Elizabeth or her granddaughter, Lady Jane Grey, would be. However, “exceptional” is also the appropriate word in that those women were exceptions to the norm. By contrast, Mary’s example provides an excellent case study of the kind of education noblewomen of her class would have received. Delving more deeply into the exact nature of that education—both formal and informal teaching— this chapter not only sheds additional light on early modern reading practices but also facilitates better understanding of the models Mary followed as she sought to increase her political authority both as queen and as dowager.

The Politics of Charm “I fear she shall give her mind too much to play. It will come soon enough to her. I would she should ply her work, the lute and the virginals, but I refer it all to your goodness.”37 These lines are taken from a letter written in 1535 by Lady Honor Lisle to Madame de Bours, the French noblewoman who had fostered Lisle’s daughter Mary Basset. Lisle’s letter illustrates an important aspect of early modern education: that preparing children for a courtier’s life meant teaching them to display their talents, to learn to entertain, to find ways to attract positive attention. In this culture, learning to play the lute or the virginals was not a hobby but a key element of a girl’s preparation for presentation at court. In his 1528 treatise Il Cortegiano (The Book of the Courtier), Baldassare Castiglione imagines a dialogue between nobles debating the traits of the model courtier; one of his speakers, Count Lodovico da Canossa, after listing noble birth, good looks, wit, grace, strength, fidelity, honesty, and other virtues, specifies amongst his ideal requirements the ability to ride, swim, play tennis, vault, dance, and jest with discretion.38 He and the other speakers refine the list, discussing the issues of grace, careful speech, learning, and behavior, but it is clear that what may seem to us today to be frivolous achievements were nonetheless vital to success at court and thus, access to political power. Sharon Michalove notes that noble children’s education “consisted of two parts—noriture and lettrure. Noriture consisted of etiquette, athletics, dancing, music, the composition of poetry, and other artistic and physical achievements. Lettrure stressed reading and writing in French, English, and Latin, the study of practical rather than imaginative literature, and fostered the study of grammar and history.”39 Because the power of an early modern court depended so greatly on its reputation for magnificence, those who wanted to be part of it needed to be able to add to the display in some fashion. For women, beyond grace, wit, virtue, and other accomplishments, there was an additional requirement: beauty. In Il Cortegiano, Castiglione has Guiliano de

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 23

2/18/2011 3:44:18 PM

24

The French Queen’s Letters

Medici, the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, proclaim that “me think well beawty is more necessarie in her then in the Courtier, for (to saye the truth) there is a great lacke in the woman that wanteth beawtie” (214).40 His recommendation was echoed in reality. Barbara Harris notes that in their dispatches foreign ambassadors would routinely comment on the beauty of court ladies as part of their assessments of a court, as would early modern chroniclers of the period such as Edward Hall.41 Attention to dress, grooming, and ornamentation were all part of the spectacle. Records demonstrate that both time and money were lavished on Mary’s education and outfitting, preparing her to assume an important role on the international stage in the years to come. Like Mary Basset, she would have been expected to learn to dance and play different instruments. Henry’s tutor Giles Duwes might have given Mary music lessons since at one time he made her a present of some lute strings.42 Wardrobe accounts in 1499 detail payments for the following garments for the three-year- old princess: “a gown of green velvet, edged with purple tinsel, and lined with black buckram; a gown of black velvet, edged with crimson; kirtles of tawny damask and black satin, edged with black velvet; and two pairs of knitted hosen [and in 1500] a dress of crimson velvet, requiring 4½ ells of material, one of blue velvet, and another of black, furred with ermine.”43 Mary’s mother Elizabeth also paid for clothing out of her own accounts; in 1502, there are payments for the making up of a black satin gown and hemming a kirtle “for my lady Mary.”44 Mary also received her own suite of attendants, including ladies-in-waiting, “a wardrobe-keeper and a schoolmaster, receiving each 66s. 8d. a quarter, and a physician who had a salary of 1s.5d. per day.”45 By 1504, her household cost 100 pounds a month to maintain.46 Such sumptuousness anticipated her future and marked her importance at the Tudor court. Mary’s education was threefold in nature; besides her intellectual activities and courtly arts, she was also trained in household and estate management. Harris notes that “the expectation that aristocratic women would marry shaped their lives from the moment of their birth. From their earliest years they were socialized to view themselves as future wives.”47 She contends that given the size of many aristocratic households and the fact that men were frequently obligated to leave home, husbands depended on their wives to act as second-in- command to protect family interests and exercise a kind of “subordinate agency” (8–9, 28). Therefore, women’s education needed to prepare them for a variety of practical concerns. Michalove agrees: “A classical education might be a nice accomplishment, but knowing about provisioning, attending to the illnesses of the household, protecting the estates in the absence of fathers, brothers, and husbands, and dealing with legal matters were vital to the smooth running of estates.”48 Such social values ensured that Mary’s mother Elizabeth and grandmother Margaret would have seen to it that Mary received a thorough education in household administration, perhaps even teaching the princess rudimentary medicine.49 Almost certainly Mary knew embroidery and probably plain sewing; records exist of both her grandmother’s and her mother’s embroidery skills and, given the emphasis on display at court, a noblewoman was expected to be able to do fancywork.50 Years later, Juan Luis Vives would write of the importance of teaching girls “to handle wolle and flaxe” in his De Institutione Foeminae Christianae (On the Instruction of a Christian Woman), translated by Richard Hyrde in 1529.51 Such skills were considered of utmost importance to ensure that girls were brought up to be womanly and modest, but still be effective managers of their husband’s property.

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 24

2/18/2011 3:44:18 PM

A Queenly Education

25

Period records demonstrate that it was in courtly endeavors, Michalove’s noriture, that Mary excelled. At the age of ten, her talents were first put on formal display when Archduke Philip and Juana of Castile were blown off course and forced to land in England. Henry VII determined to use the occasion to demonstrate England’s worth as an ally and welcomed the royal couple with extravagant hospitality.52 Upon Philip’s arrival at Windsor Castle, Henry rode out with his nobles, all of them richly dressed, to meet him. The Earl of Derby bore a sword formally before the two kings, and after they entered the castle to a fanfare by minstrels, Henry showed Philip to sumptuous lodgings calculated to impress the new king of Castile. Apparently he also sent for Catherine of Aragon, since she arrived with her household the same day; whether Mary was with her sister-inlaw or her father is uncertain, but after mass the next day, Henry escorted Philip through his own rooms and brought him to an inner chamber where Mary and Catherine waited with several ladies. Philip kissed them in greeting and they conversed, after which Catherine and Mary each danced to entertain the assembly. Subsequently Mary sat with Catherine to watch one of the Castilian king’s party dance with an Englishwoman. The herald chronicler records that then “my Lady Mary played one the Loute, and after uppon the Claregalles [clavichord] who playd very welle, and she was of all folkes theare greatly praysed that of hir youth, in every thinge shee behaved hir selfe so very welle.”53 In effect, the impromptu visit became Mary’s official debut on the public stage, and as the chronicler notes, she performed her part admirably. The account of the days that followed amply illustrates the accuracy of Castiglione’s requirements for the ideal courtier. The two kings feasted, hunted, hawked, listened to minstrels, visited the new palace at Richmond, watched jousts, horse- and bear-baiting, and games of tennis; the chronicler records that Philip even picked up a racket and beat the Marquis of Dorset by fifteen points.54 They exchanged elaborate courtesies; one evening Henry escorted Philip to his lodging, and when one of Philip’s courtiers hastily warned his sovereign that it was his own rooms they approached, the horrified Philip insisted on escorting Henry back to his chambers. The chronicler notes Philip’s discomfiture thus: “incontinent [Philip] answered and said, ‘That blame have I and I wist it,’ and so wrestled with the king and said that the king should not convey him to his lodging, but that he would turn back and convey him to his, and with divers other words.”55 The episode illustrates the pains Henry took to compliment his guest and Philip’s equal determination to match Henry courtesy for courtesy. The greatest example of such exchange is that in lavish ceremonies Henry bestowed on Philip the Order of the Garter—Prince Henry himself buckling the garter on the king’s leg—and Philip in return made Prince Henry a knight of the Order of Toison d’Or (Golden Fleece).56 Fashioning himself as a chivalric king, Henry was also painting an elaborate picture of England’s magnificence calculated to show Philip the resources he could command. Henry’s not-so-subtle message to Philip has particular import when placed in context of the overall political situation in western Europe. When Philip and Juana were shipwrecked on the English coast, they were sailing to Castile to press their claim to rule. The kingdoms of Aragon and Castile had been united with the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, but upon Isabella’s death in 1504, the rule of Castile fell to her daughter Juana, who was married to Archduke Philip of Burgundy, the son of Emperor Maximilian. Ferdinand, however, planned to continue administering Castile in Juana’s absence, and so, when

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 25

2/18/2011 3:44:18 PM

26

The French Queen’s Letters

Philip and Juana set sail on the journey that would end so precipitously on the shores of England, they did so in company of an army of some two or three thousand men, a number of whom were lost in the storm.57 For his part, Henry was seeking to secure the Tudor dynasty and to strengthen England’s position amongst the European powers. The Anglo- Spanish alliance had deteriorated, especially given the uncertainty of Catherine’s status and English delays in committing firmly to a marriage between the widowed princess and the new heir. Moreover, when Ferdinand sought to augment his resources to make his bid to continue governing Castile, he married the niece of Louis XII of France, aligning himself with the French against his old allies the Hapsburgs in the Low Countries. Recognizing this shift, Henry negotiated with the Hapsburgs and loaned Philip money to assist in claiming the Castilian throne; he also proposed marriages between himself and Margaret of Austria, the Emperor Maximilian’s daughter (and Philip’s sister); between Mary and Prince Charles, the son of Philip and Juana; and between Prince Henry and Eleanor, Charles’s sister.58 For his part, Philip was open to English support—he was wholly focused on Castile and had small love for Catherine, given her loyalty to her father Ferdinand.59 This political jockeying gives new shades to Henry’s behavior during Philip’s stay in England. He was engaged in early modern diplomacy, seeking to impress his new ally with displays of chivalry to bolster their coalition. Nearly hidden amongst the detailed accounts of hunting and hawking, feasting and dancing lie the chronicler’s brief, yet frequent, observations noting that the kings met with their councils or even that “both kings met secretly together.”60 In light of that, when Henry arranged to display the genealogy of their two houses at dinner to show “how nigh kin” they were, he was conveying a message far more important than mere ancestry.61 That message was well received. Acknowledging the advantages of Henry’s friendship, Philip soon reciprocated Henry’s hospitality by offering “unaxed . . . to yield Ed. Rebell,” that is, Edmund de la Pole, the earl of Suffolk, and one of the last legitimate York heirs who had fled abroad to escape the Tudor regime.62 Given that it was Philip’s father Maximilian who had supported the pretender Perkin Warbeck, this admission of Henry’s legitimacy was greatly welcome. In addition, on February 9, the kings signed a treaty of mutual defense in which Henry formally recognized Philip’s rights in Castile. They also concluded a trade agreement so advantageous to England that the Burgundians afterwards referred to it as the Malus Intercursus. Placed in this wider context, Mary’s music recital carries deep implications. Henry was not just a proud father showing off his daughter’s talents, but a shrewd politician advertising the advantages of a wedding between his daughter and Prince Charles, a match that would confirm the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. The compliments Mary received—although there is no reason to doubt their accuracy as indications of her ability as a musician and dancer—also need to be read as praise of her worthiness to be the prince’s bride. The growing significance of Mary’s importance to the proceedings is underlined as the herald chronicler marks her attendance at the formal welcome of Queen Juana, who had stayed on the coast to recover from the crossing. He also observes that she and Catherine went to Richmond the day before the two kings.63 In April, Margaret Beaufort’s servants brought Mary to Croydon to hear a performance by Philip’s musicians.64 By any measure she clearly made a strong impression on the king of Castile. Though she was young, Mary’s birthright

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 26

2/18/2011 3:44:18 PM

A Queenly Education

27

guaranteed her considerable worth on the marriage market; her personal achievements enhanced that value, a connection of which she herself could hardly escape being aware. And having made such a spectacular debut, she was now indeed set high upon the international stage.

Marital Maneuvers In 1477, attempting to mock the Hapsburgs’ lack of success in war, Matthias Corvinus, the king of Hungary, might well have articulated the dynasty’s personal motto: “Let the strong fight wars. Thou, happy Austria marry. What Mars bestows on others, Venus gives to thee.”65 It is a lesson that Henry VII learned well. Having secured peace with the Scots through his daughter Margaret’s marriage to James IV and peace with Spain with the marriage of his son Arthur and Catherine of Aragon, he sought to strengthen his dynasty still further through Mary’s marriage. Other rulers had noted Mary’s potential marital value from the moment of her birth. In 1498, when Mary was only two, Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan, petitioned Henry for her hand in marriage to his son. In his diary, the Venetian Marino Sanuto explicitly links Milanese fears regarding French territorial ambitions with Sforza’s request.66 He adds that Henry refused, thinking Mary too young and of too high a condition for the duke. In his letter to Sforza, Henry makes no mention of rank, but relies solely on Mary’s age as a reason to defer discussing the matter until she is at least seven.67 The Milanese ambassador Raimondo de Raimondi in England wrote back to his master rather scathingly about English reluctance to act and complained that Henry had kept him waiting forty days in order to avoid offending the French. Henry clearly had other plans for Mary; this opening gambit, although rejected, nonetheless confirms the political maneuvering connected to Mary’s marriage. Unlike the Sforza match, a betrothal with Prince Charles would give Henry precisely what he wanted: a strong alliance with the Hapsburg Empire and ultimately, the crown of a united Spain. But to achieve the betrothal, he would need the consent of Charles’s grandfathers the Emperor Maximilian and King Ferdinand of Aragon as well as that of Philip and Juana. Like Mary’s graceful steps on the dance floor, Henry executed his plans with delicate diplomacy, starting by attracting attention to Mary’s person. After the success of her appearance before Philip, Mary began to appear more and more on the world stage. In May, 1506, Henry organized a tournament at Greenwich and as part of the pageantry, arranged for a letter to be sent from the Lady May to Mary mentioning the successful joust for Philip in February and asking Mary to license a tournament to celebrate the season of spring.68 Thus at ten, Mary had her first taste of being the center of tournament display. Then, on August 24, Vincenzo Capello, a captain of the galleys from Flanders, wrote the Venetian Sanuto that during his visit to England, Henry dined with him, expressed his support for Venice, and then brought him to hear Mary and Catherine playing music together.69 In May and June of 1507, the Kennington tournaments, whose symbolism was outlined at the beginning of this chapter, featured Mary in the starring role: the lady who summons the knights to joust. Meanwhile Henry continued negotiations with both Ferdinand and Maximilian, until finally on December 21, 1507, a treaty was signed in Calais confirming the betrothal of Mary and Charles, then eleven and seven years old, respectively.70 Watching her father’s machinations helped to provide

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 27

2/18/2011 3:44:19 PM

28

The French Queen’s Letters

Mary with another kind of education, one that confirmed her awareness of her worth as a bride and illustrated how her courtly accomplishments might further English ambition. The details of the treaty called for a proxy marriage to take place before Easter of the following year.71 According to the agreement, Mary would bring a dowry of 250,000 crowns to her marriage. In addition, should she survive Charles, she would receive a jointure of the same towns her great aunt Margaret, the Yorkist duchess of Burgundy, had once held as well as an additional jointure in any lands Charles were to inherit in the future. Stiff financial penalties that promised to punish any default on the agreement demonstrate that the parties acknowledged the possibility that the marriage might yet fall apart. When Charles turned fourteen in 1514, Mary would be sent to him, but until that time, she would continue to live in England. The Castilian match was apparently popular. Richard Turpyn, author of the chronicle of Calais, records “great triumphe made” in the city on the day the treaty was signed.72 In addition, a ballad, “Chancon faicte en lhonneur De madame marie” (“Song made in honor of my Lady Mary”) was composed to celebrate the match. Celebrating the renewed alliance of England and the Low Countries, the refrain welcomes Mary in quasi-biblical language, underscoring her importance: “Arouse your sleeping hearts / those who are friends of the English / let us sing Hail Mary.”73 More, it emphasizes the marriage as a means of bringing unprecedented peace: “For ten thousand years from now / there will never be, nor ever have been in this country / such a peace, such a lineage.”74 Although the song certainly exaggerates, nonetheless it illustrates how early modern society constructed royal marriage as an act of diplomacy in itself. Although the treaty specified the proxy marriage would take place before Easter, politicking delayed the arrival of the ambassadors until almost a full year later. Maximilian was weighing his options—alliance with France or with England—and waited to see which would bring him the better advantage. He confessed to his daughter Margaret of Austria in a letter dated July 23, 1508, that the primary reason he consented to the marriage with Mary was because Henry had promised him a loan of 100,000 crowns.75 Finally in October, he confirmed his choice and commissioned eight ambassadors, led by his chamberlain, Lord Johannes de Berghes, to go to England to perform the ceremony.76 Sailing from Calais, accompanied by many other lords from the Low Countries, the ambassadors landed at Dover on December 1, where they were met by a number of English nobles and escorted to London by way of Canterbury, each town’s Lord Mayor and aldermen welcoming them with great gifts and entertainments.77 Afterwards they had audience at Greenwich with Henry VII, Prince Henry, several bishops and the other leading nobles of the kingdom, who gave them a generous reception, according to the ambassadors’ account. The terms of the treaty finally confirmed, on December 16 all the parties involved withdrew to the palace at Richmond, which was “furnished beyond compare with Tapestry, Silks and Plate of inestimable value.”78 On the following Sunday the wedding took place. At sunrise the ambassadors and other lords and ladies entered the Presence Chamber of the Princess where Henry, Mary, Catherine, and others met them. After the Archbishop of Canterbury gave an oration celebrating the occasion, the wedding vows were spoken. Acting as Charles’ proxy, Lord Berghes held Mary’s hand and the two pronounced their vows per verba de praesenti, which indicated a valid marriage from that day, making Mary

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 28

2/18/2011 3:44:19 PM

A Queenly Education

29

officially the Princess of Castile. Berghes kissed Mary and slipped a gold ring onto her finger. Trumpets and other instruments sounded, and then Henry led Berghes by the arm into mass, after which Henry held a great banquet and a joust that lasted three days. Other entertainments included disguisings, morris dances, and interludes, and in London, rejoicings and bonfires were made throughout the city as “demonstracions & signes of Joye and gladnesse.”79 In addition, at the request of the ambassadors, Charles was elected into England’s most prestigious Order of the Garter. Thus, through lavish display and entertainments, Henry emphasized the significance of the match. The audience for that magnificence extended far beyond the English court and the ambassadors. Henry’s Latin secretary, Pietro Carmeliano, was commissioned to write up the full event in Latin, a tract that was printed on vellum by Richard Pynson and decorated with woodcut illustrations of Henry and Mary, then sent to King Ferdinand of Aragon, among others.80 Pynson also printed an account in English titled The solempnitites & triumphes doon & made at the spousells and Mariage of the Kyngs doughter the Ladye Marye to the Prynce of Castile Archeduke of Austrige (hereafter Spousells) for a more general distribution. Both versions underscored the importance of the marriage; according to the Spousells, it was “the moost noble aliaunce and gretest Mariage of all christendome” (fol. 5v). Noting the many lands that would be united under Charles, the writer, probably a herald, claims the alliance with England wrought thereby will ensure the honor, prosperity and security of all the lands and people involved (fol. 5v). Both accounts also detail the extravagance of the celebration. Describing the feast, the Spousells’s author declares that it “is certayne that there was no salte cuppe or layer that that day was set on the borde, But it was of fyne glod [sic] great and large preciously garnysshed with perles and stones” (fol. 8v). When the knights held their joust, their clothing became “every day richer than other,” and after the final tourney the writer was careful to note that all the participants “had mervaylous great prayse both of strayngiers and others” (fol. 9r). Such details enhanced England’s reputation on the European stage. Each narrative also carefully fashions Mary as a great princess with wisdom far beyond her years. Carmeliano praises her, saying that “to declare and announce in words the splendid beauty of this princess, the modesty and gravity with which she bore herself, the laudable and princely gestures, befitting so great a princess, which, at that time, were found in her, would be out of my power to make comprehensible by any word or page.”81 The extravagance of his tribute evokes the descriptions of ladies in chivalric romance, as does Mary’s attendance at the jousts held in celebration of the match. In addition, each text extols the Tudor princess’s considerable virtues. The English account relates that when Mary spoke her vows (in French), her composure impressed all present: with moost sadde & pryncely countenaunce havynge noo maner of persone to reherse the wordes of matrymonye to hir utterd spake parfitely and distinctely in the frensche tonge by a longe circumstaunce the words of matrimonye for hir partie whiche by reason of the rehersall of his commission were veraye longe. Howe be it she spake the same without any basshing of countenaunce stoppe or interrupcion therin in any behalf; Whiche thyng causyd dyverse and many as well nobles as other then beyng present and herynge the same not oonly to mervayle. But also in suche wyse to rejoyse that for extreme co[ntent and gladn] es the terys passed out of theyr Ies.82

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 29

2/18/2011 3:44:19 PM

30

The French Queen’s Letters

Tears in their eyes might be an exaggeration, but nonetheless it cannot be doubted that these texts construct Mary as a princess of whom the English are justifiably proud. In this manner, they prepare the way for her to assume a position of great political power in the future. Emphasizing that Mary was already receiving international attention, the narrator details the expensive jewels given to her by the Emperor Maximilian, Archduchess Margaret of Austria, and Mary’s newly wedded husband Prince Charles. From Maximilian she received “an orient rubye and a large and a fayre diamonde garnysshed with great perles,” from Margaret, a “goodly Balas [a kind of ruby] garnysshed with perles,” and from Charles, “a k for karolus garynysshed with diamondes and perles wherin these wordes were written. Maria optimam patrem elegit que non auferetur ab ea” (“Mary has chosen the best part, that will not be taken from her”).83 Each of these gifts highlighted Mary’s new status as Princess of Castile and anticipated her emergence as an important player in European politics. Diplomatic correspondence of the period further underscored that fact. Sanuto records a letter written from Agostin da Mulla, a captain of the Flanders galleys, which relates the arrival of Maximilian’s ambassadors in London, sandwiched between details of his voyage and observations about his own arrival in the city and the contents of other ships.84 Sanuto also notes the Venetians had received a letter on January 11, 1509, from the French ambassador to England stating that the marriage between Mary and Charles had been agreed.85 This marriage and its accompanying alliance affected the balance of power between all the nations in western Europe; at various courts, different players assessed the situation and contemplated possible ways to exploit the situation to their own advantage. For instance, Edmund Wingfield, an English ambassador in the Low Countries, wrote to Margaret of Austria telling her Henry’s proposals to make peace with France, marry his son Henry to Marguerite d’Angoulême, and thus induce Louis to break with Ferdinand of Aragon, after which they could form a league of the Pope, Maximilian, Henry, and Louis to expel Ferdinand from Castile. That done, Maximilian might successfully wage war on Venice.86 This was merely one proposal being secretly floated amongst the power brokers of Europe. Charles and Mary’s marriage also precluded the possibility of other proposed matches that would have resulted in different marital alignments. Should Charles have been wed to Princess Claude of France, as the French suggested, the ensuing alliance of Spain, France, and the Low Countries might have excluded England altogether. Instead, Mary’s marriage to Charles announced that England was a power to be respected. Henry’s sumptuous celebration of Mary’s marriage is thus amply explained, as are the extravagant descriptions that circulated amongst the courts of Europe of a princess nearly thirteen years old. For Mary, the betrothal and its accompanying alliance ensured her knowledge that her marriage was inherently political.

John Palsgrave’s French Lessons: Women, Politics, and the Influence of Letters Although there is no written record of books owned by Mary before her marriage to Louis, one of the best indications of the books with which she was familiar comes from John Palsgrave’s French textbook, Lesclaircissement de la langue

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 30

2/18/2011 3:44:20 PM

A Queenly Education

31

francoyse, published in 1530. In 1512, Palsgrave was hired as Mary’s French instructor in preparation for her departure to the continent as Princess of Castile; he then accompanied Mary to France as her secretary when she married Louis XII in 1514.87 At some point after beginning his work with Mary, he started writing Lesclaircissement. In a dedicatory epistle to Henry VIII, Palsgrave declares that he first began the treatise because he was Desirous to do some humble service unto the nobilite of this victorious realme, and universally unto all other estates of this my natyfe country, after I was commaunded by your most redouted hyghnesse to instruct the right excellent princes, your most dere and most entirely beloved suster quene Mary douagier of France in the frenche tonge.88

He notes that Mary and Charles Brandon encouraged him to continue his work after he showed them Lesclaircissement’s first two books on pronunciation and on grammar; their support led him to complete a third volume which greatly expanded sections on grammar and vocabulary.89 A written record of Palsgrave’s teaching, Lesclaircissement frequently employs examples from medieval literature to illustrate grammatical constructions. These citations provide an excellent way to identify works that Mary would have known. Gabriele Stein notes that Palsgrave’s references to English authors like Chaucer and Lydgate make Lesclaircissement “a social document reflecting the literary tastes of the early sixteenth century.”90 Although Palsgrave often omits the source of his English examples, with the exception of the Canterbury Tales, he almost always names the French work; there are lengthy quotations from Jean Lemaire de Belges’s Epistres de l’amant vert and Les illustrations de Gaule et singularitez de Troye, Alain Chartier’s Quadrilogue invectif, Le Traité de l’Esperance, and Lai de paix, Jean de Meun’s Roman de la Rose, and Octavien de Saint- Gelais’s translation of Ovid’s Heroides.91 The popularity of these works at the French and Burgundian courts further underscores the likelihood that Mary would have been familiar with them.92 Although Palsgrave may have selected these books to hone Mary’s Frenchspeaking skills, their content ensured that her education under the humanist scholar’s tutelage greatly exceeded simple issues of conjugation, pronunciation, and translation. By reading these texts, which range from a history of the Trojan War to political treatises to courtly love poems, Mary was exposed to a variety of ideas about women’s roles in society, their involvement in politics, and their obligations to family and country, as well as numerous examples of women’s epistolary rhetoric. As a result, Palsgrave helped prepare Mary for life in a foreign court, her responsibility for upholding the family honor, and her duty to act as an ambassador embodying the alliance. These texts enabled Mary not only to understand the obstacles she would face as a queen but also to recognize the kind of authority she might wield and to find ways to increase her influence. Palsgrave’s selections proffer a variety of models for women’s participation in political affairs. For instance, Chartier’s Quadrilogue, written in 1422, is a dream vision in which the author witnesses a lady, the embodiment of France, chastising her three sons (i.e., the three estates): Nobility, Clergy, and People. Their respective failings have each contributed to the downfall of France and paved the way for the English king Henry V to press his successful claim to the throne.93 The lady France, who speaks “with high courage,” is contrasted with her sons’ idle

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 31

2/18/2011 3:44:20 PM

32

The French Queen’s Letters

cowardice that has “shamed the constancy of your fathers.”94 In response, People and Nobility squabble, blaming one another for the turmoil. Clergy attempts to calm his fractious brothers, pointing out that all three have failed to support the dauphin as they ought. He reminds them of the mother who, when she saw her sons’ cowardly flight from a battle, ran in front of them and lifted up her skirts, bidding them return to the womb, for it would be better had they never been born than to live in such dishonor (54–5). When Nobility attempts a rejoinder, his mother ends the debate, saying “I will hear no more of your excuses and defenses, for in your arguments and discord amongst each other lies no help for my misfortune” and enjoining each son to correct his own faults.95 Nevertheless she promises to publish their complaints so that everyone will know each other’s grievances. Exercising the right of a mother to rebuke her fractious offspring, France bids her children unite in her defense; they submit to her wisdom and just authority when the political stakes involve no less than the crown itself. Indeed, Clergy’s praise of the outraged mother of the cowardly sons suggests it is a woman’s duty to correct her children in such a case. For Mary, the metaphorical lady also served as a reminder that as queen of her people, Mary would have the authority to rule her subjects with a mother’s discipline. Other family ties can also authorize women’s participation in the political realm. Palsgrave cites long passages from Lemaire’s Illustrations de Gaule et singularitez de Troye, which posits that the French royal house is descended from Hector of Troy, then relates the history of both nations. When Palsgrave illustrates different usages of French verb tenses, for example, he quotes twelve lines of Lemaire’s description of Achilles dragging Hector’s corpse in the dust in revenge for the death of Patroclus (III.122v). In the very next paragraph of Illustrations, Lemaire relates how Priam went to beg Achilles for the return of his son’s body, yet Lemaire alters the Iliad to include women in the scene: “This good old prince leaned on the left shoulder of his daughter the beautiful Polyxena and with him came the noble Andromache, wife of the dead Prince Hector, and his two young children . . . this sight was piteous and miserable to behold.”96 It is the combined spectacle of the beautiful Trojan princess and the new widow supporting the grieving father that helps to make such an impression on the vengeful Greek, who accedes to Priam’s plea. Women thus have the power to act in support of their families; by contrast, Lemaire emphasizes that those women who defy their husbands, such as Hecuba, who secretly preserves the infant Paris from death or Helen, who so famously abandons Menelaus, precipitate disaster for Troy. Such lessons may have provided Mary with models for women’s intervention in politics by drawing on the different roles of sister, wife, and mother. Although today accounts of the Trojan War are studied as literature, in early modern Europe they were understood as historical; Lemaire explicitly marks his tale as history by opening with a genealogical table connecting the royal houses of France, Burgundy, and Troy. But he blurs the boundaries between myth and history further in the prologue, which purports to be a letter from the god Mercury saluting Margaret of Austria and charging her to bring up her nephew Prince Charles (Mary’s future fiancé) well. Mercury explains that he knows of no other princess on earth who compares as favorably to Pallas Athena for her wisdom, nor any prince who better represents the young and noble Paris than Margaret’s dear nephew Charles.97 By heeding the example of the book written by his servant Lemaire, Margaret, “another Pallas,” will guide her nephew so that he becomes another Hector worthy of his ancestors.98 For Lemaire, Margaret is

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 32

2/18/2011 3:44:20 PM

A Queenly Education

33

an excellent guardian for the young prince. His text highlights women’s ability to influence men; by teaching men to achieve glory, women have a direct impact on national affairs. By calling Margaret Pallas Athena, Lemaire claims the goddess of wisdom as a model for princesses to follow. Then, in the first chapter, he explicitly invites all the princesses and noblewomen of France to learn from his work (10–11). Reading his words would have encouraged Mary to understand the significance of women’s roles as guides, intercessors, and counselors, especially when grounded in the rhetoric of familial duty or affection. Yet Mary knew Pallas Athena as the goddess not only of wisdom but also of war. By invoking Pallas as an exemplar for female behavior, Lemaire allows another model of queenship: the warrior queen. His history cites three different queens involved in war: Clotilde, the queen of Burgundy, Semiramis, the queen of Babylon, and Penthesilea, the queen of the Amazons. Like Polyxena, Clotilde’s motivation is rooted in her filial duty, but she takes a far more active role than the Trojan princess. When her uncle Gundebaud kills Clotilde’s parents in order to consolidate his reign over all of Burgundy, Clotilde negotiates her own marriage with Clovis, the king of the Franks, and demands that in return for her hand, he must convert to Christianity and avenge the murders of her family.99 Although her uncle’s counselors manage to preserve peace for a little while by forcing Gundebaud to accede to Clovis’s demands for the jewels and treasures Clotilde should inherit from her father, it is Clotilde, Lemaire emphasizes, who will not be pacified: “The Queen Clotilde, envious and saddened by her uncle’s peaceful reign so long unchallenged in Burgundy, frequently pressed and entreated her husband to declare open war on her uncle.”100 The example of Clotilde, who uses marriage as a tool of vengeance and ultimately spurs her husband to battle, would remind princesses such as Mary that their influence as wives could have wideranging political effects. In Lemaire’s text, the queens Semiramis and Penthesilea are even more directly involved in war since they lead their people in battle, and perhaps as a result, his treatment of their lives is correspondingly small. Semiramis gets only passing mention as means of dating events on three occasions.101 Penthesilea achieves a little more attention; her story is located in the very same chapter Palsgrave quotes about the death of Hector. Lemaire explains that the prowess of her women warriors and especially Penthesilea herself so impressed both Trojans and Greeks that Achilles wanted to bury her honorably after she fell in battle, though his intentions were thwarted by the cruel Diomedes, who dragged her body by the feet into the river Xanthus (183–4). Her example in particular provides a grim lesson about the ambivalence of men toward warlike behavior by a woman: that in winning the respect of the greatest of the Greeks, she fell victim to another’s disgust. Both Semiramis and Penthesilea were famous; if Mary read the stories of their lives in her brother’s copy of Boccaccio’s De mulieribus claris or if she were able to read one of the copies of Christine de Pizan’s Livre de la cité des dames circulating in England, she would have been made aware of the various ways authors could interpret and tell these women’s stories to vastly different ends.102 Boccaccio uses Semiramis’s example to castigate men who refuse to fight by contrasting her behavior with her son’s; she is a woman who jumps up to battle with her hair only half-braided while her effeminate son (with whom she has an incestuous affair) stays in bed. Christine, by contrast, makes Semiramis an exemplar of virtue and the cornerstone of her allegorical City of Ladies as a reward for her achievements

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 33

2/18/2011 3:44:21 PM

34

The French Queen’s Letters

defending her people (excusing the incest by noting that Babylonian society had no such taboo). Treatments of Penthesilea’s life differ first in their depiction of her motives; Boccaccio’s Amazon queen goes to Troy to be impregnated by Hector while Christine’s monarch loves him chastely and wishes to fight at his side.103 Boccaccio gives alternate versions of the timing of her arrival in Troy, but both versions serve, like Semiramis, to shame those men “who have been changed into women . . . by idleness and love of pleasure” (131). In Christine’s story, Penthesilea arrives too late, gives a magnificent speech praising the dead prince, and vows to avenge his death. After she dies in battle, her Amazons bear her body in honor back to their own country. In this fashion, she becomes worthy of membership in Christine’s alternate history celebrating the deeds of noble women. The accounts of the two warrior queens amply illustrate how malleable is truth, how important is perspective, and how easy it is to rewrite history to a desired end. That women’s behavior could be so disputed is made further apparent in other works Palsgrave employed to teach Mary: Chartier’s La belle dame sans mercy (The beautiful woman without mercy) and L’hopital d’amours (The hospital of love).104 In La belle dame sans mercy, Chartier describes a dream vision in which he sees a lover pleading in vain for a lady’s favor. Defending herself dexterously against her would-be lover’s charges of cruelty, the lady claims the right to live and love freely (60–1). Palsgrave quotes one rejoinder—a lady will bestow her grace “where it pleases her, and not in recompense for gifts” (“ou il luy playst, et bon luy semble guerdon contrainte, et renchiere”) (III.vi r ).105 She will not risk the pain of deception, the threat to her honor, or the pangs of love just to ease his distress (60–85). When she bids him to leave her alone, the narrator explains that the young man died of a broken heart and then calls on all young ladies to be kinder than this lady (90–3). Soon afterwards, ladies of the French court, led by Katherine, Marie, and Jeanne, wrote letters summoning Chartier before them to answer for having slandered women in this fashion. Engaged in diplomatic pursuits, Chartier was unable to appear, yet penned L’excusation de Maistre Alain (The Excuse of Master Alain) begging the God of Love’s defense and the ladies’ forgiveness. However, the ladies responded with another angry letter promising to retry the case before the God of Love with the aid of their lawyers.106 Calling him a two-faced liar and scorpion, they threaten him with hanging or burning as a heretic to Love if he fails to retract his claims (100–7). Their vehemence, although hyperbolic, underscores how important they think it is to defend the belle dame, and by extension, themselves. The whole affair sparks a literary controversy of no less than eighteen responses (not counting Keats’s version some four hundred years later), some rewrites, some continuations, others responses (one of which is L’hopital d’amours, in which the young lover does not die, but goes to the hospital of love).107 The number of responses testifies to the entertainment value of such literary quarrels, but it also highlights the dangers to a woman’s reputation if people were to misinterpret her behavior, something Mary surely noticed. In addition, she could not have failed to observe that that the women made their complaints through letters. Through the epistolary medium, they could send their voices beyond the walls of the court, script their complaints carefully, and not only lead Chartier to take them seriously enough to respond, but also inspire other poets to add their voices to the debate. Mary’s knowledge of the letter as a powerful vehicle for a woman’s voice would have been further underscored by her knowledge of Ovid’s Heroides, one of the

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 34

2/18/2011 3:44:21 PM

A Queenly Education

35

works Palsgrave uses most frequently in Lesclaircissement, where he quotes letters from Hypermnestra, Phyllis, Medea, Hermione, Oenone, Dido, and Penelope (who received brief attention in the introduction to this volume). The letter he cites most often—seven times—is Dido’s to Aeneas. On two different occasions, Palsgrave calls attention to Dido’s impressive list of grievances: that she received Aeneas into her city and that she gave him her realm, yet he still abandoned her.108 This letter is Dido’s revenge for Aeneas’s betrayal; by rehearsing their arguments and making herself into an object of pity, she hopes to shame him personally and publicly, to make him feel pangs of guilt for her suicide and to tarnish his reputation as a noble prince. The letter itself is strongly linked to her death. As she writes, the sword he left her sits in her lap; the letter mingles with her tears and soon thereafter, her blood.109 Dido’s tears enshrine her body in the letter, which itself is both her lasting memorial and the instrument of Aeneas’s punishment. Her epistolary accusations pursue him across the ocean to accuse him long after her death. Mary would be well aware that as Penelope demands, Ulysses eventually does go home, that the name of Aeneas is forever linked with that of Dido, and more, that the names of Paris, Jason, Theseus, and other men who have betrayed their women earn their measure of infamy. In the world Ovid imagines, these letters are successful. Although the tragic examples of these heroines might not be models to follow, Ovid’s rendering of their letters remained popular for almost two millennia, sending even sixteenth- century readers the message that letters are a powerful medium for women to use. They travel where the sender cannot herself go, and, when written well, can accomplish a woman’s desires. When Mary found herself isolated in France, unable to speak to her brother in person, letters were her only practical way to reach Henry, yet the Ovidian tradition of letters carrying a woman’s voice across the water added literary authority to the force of her words. Fictional works not only establish the epistolary genre as a woman’s medium but also give instructions for writing an effective letter. Some authors, especially Ovid and Chaucer, explore the implications of a letter’s physicality and ability to represent the sender. The Heroides and Troilus and Criseyde are each concerned with the ways that people read letters and the various roles a letter can perform; for instance, they consider the importance of the letter’s length as an indication of affection and address the significance of the sender’s choice to write the letter in her own hand. In effect, Ovid and Chaucer create a code by which to read the underlying messages a letter can send. Many of the epistolary concerns that occupied these writers appear in Mary’s letters: the value of one’s own hand, the political use of the letter, the concern over the letter’s reliability, the performance of the letter as a public and private document, the letter as a connection, even the fashioning of a letter to script past events and influence future decisions. Because Mary’s letters also reflect her society’s epistolary conventions, we cannot isolate what influence comes directly from her reading and what from the culture in which she lived. But fictional letters also form a part of Mary’s epistolary culture; there exists an almost symbiotic relationship between historical and literary letters, in which fiction takes elements from everyday experience, and experience takes its cue from fiction. Mary’s letters illustrate the strength of such connections, and while she emulated the ideas suggested in her books, ballads, poems, and novels would later be written about her experience.110 Letters such as Mary’s provide the opportunity to probe such

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 35

2/18/2011 3:44:21 PM

36

The French Queen’s Letters

connections, as the chapters that follow demonstrate as they examine the ways that Mary negotiated the various opportunities and dilemmas that arose in the course of both of her marriages.

A Lady in a Romance: Living and Learning Chivalry In the preface to Blanchardyn and Eglantine, a romance commissioned by Margaret Beaufort, William Caxton contends that the book is as appropriate an exemplum for young ladies as devotional literature would be. He offers the book for all vertuouse yong noble gentylmen & wymmen for to rede therin, as for their passe tym . . . And in lykewyse for gentyl yonge ladyes and damoysellys, for to lerne to be stedfaste & constaunt in their parte to theym that they ones have promysed and agreed to suche as have putte their lyves ofte in Jeopardye for to playse theym to stande in grace, As it is to occupye theym and studye over moche in bokes of contemplacion.111

The book would have been particularly appropriate for Mary as both education and entertainment. Given its connection to Margaret and the prevalence of romances at the Tudor court, it is possible that Mary read or heard the text read aloud, especially since communal reading was a frequent practice. Kim Philips cites the example of Cecily, duchess of York, discussing the day’s reading with her maidens at meals and notes that “Andrew Taylor has written of the social role of romance and chronicle accounts of battle in forming ideals of courage and ‘chivalry’ amongst young men in conversation, and depictions of romance heroines may equally have played a role in the construction of urban and gentle feminine identities.”112 The Tudor emphasis on teaching morals through chivalric romance suggests that Taylor’s argument remains applicable in the sixteenth century. Although Caxton’s premise—that women who read romance ought to emulate it—presupposes a fairly straightforward model, the work of Philips, Carol Meale, and Felicity Riddy suggests that the actual reading of such books would have been far more complex.113 The romance was not a conduct book to be mapped literally onto a woman’s life but more a way of imagining possible behaviors or relationships, one that created a space for the reader to consider cultural norms, especially regarding her role in society. As Richard Kaeuper notes, “romance literature is no simple ‘mirror to society’ but an active social force . . . it became the framework for debate about how the dominant laypeople should live, love, govern, fight, and practice piety—real issues with real consequences. Romance is not simply a literature of celebration or agreement; it is a literature of debate, criticism, reform.”114 This argument is particularly relevant to issues of gender, given that the romance discourse elevating women to positions of power appeared to contradict the patriarchal hierarchies that governed everyday life. Such possibilities for disrupting gender dynamics become all the more important in a society that foregrounds chivalry as a mode of rhetorical propaganda. Many scholars have noted how the Tudor monarchs consciously invoked the rhetoric of chivalry as a means of stabilizing and promoting their rule.115 Holding ceremonies such as the king’s touch or royal progresses, sponsoring painters and sculptors, historians and poets, all contributed to the mythos of Tudor glory that featured the ruler as the center of society. Both Henry VII and his son encouraged

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 36

2/18/2011 3:44:22 PM

A Queenly Education

37

their courtiers to see the golden Arthurian age renewed by holding revels and jousts with elaborate trappings, themes, and imagery, especially after Henry VIII assumed the throne in 1509. In tournaments, knights dressed in costume and/or took allegorical names such as “Cueur Loyall” (Loyal Heart) and “Valiant Desire.” These knights, part of the February 7, 1511, tournament celebrating the birth of a prince, noted in their challenge that they “submitt themselfes to the queene and the Ladies: and they alwaies to add and diminishe at their noble pleasures.”116 Employing the rhetoric of chivalric romance, they bowed to the authority of the women they served. And if Henry represented the new Arthur and the nobles his Knights of the Round Table, then by extension, the women of his court might inhabit the roles of Guinevere, Isoud, Morgause, or Morgan le Fay. Considering the ramifications of that kind of modeling helps to further our understanding of the exercise of early modern queenship and how romances could give noblewomen, most notably queens and princesses, access to a rhetorical vocabulary they could employ to claim a position of authority. After Henry VIII’s coronation in 1509, such entertainments became more frequent; England rejoiced in its young king and a peaceful succession. Sharpe points out that the poet John Skelton’s verses written for Henry’s accession celebrate Henry as “ ‘Martis lusty knight’, as the symbol of vigorous renewal and as a champion of his people” (111). A song written by Henry himself, “Pastime with good company,” cheerfully proclaims the need for “all goodly sport” such as hunting, dancing, and singing, since “youth must have some dalliance” to avoid the vices that spring from idleness.117 Extant records indicate that Henry practiced this philosophy regularly, sometimes to the astonishment of his wife Catherine. In 1510, Henry and twelve companions burst into Catherine’s chamber dressed as Robin Hood and his merry outlaws, all in Kendall green and sporting bows and arrows. Hall relates the tale, noting that “the Quene, the Ladies, and al other there, were abashed, aswell for the straunge sight, as also for their sodain commyng, and after certain daunces, and pastime made, thei departed.”118 Through his pastimes, Henry created a world where Robin Hood, always a transgressive figure, could step out of the ballads and into the palace without warning. Such “straunge sights” further blurred the boundaries of reality and rhetoric, encouraging participants to engage in the fantasy. Mary lived at the heart of her brother’s courtly displays as she joined him frequently in masques, disguisings, and tournaments.119 Therefore she was particularly well positioned to recognize the potential that this rhetoric of chivalry presented for women’s authority. At her brother’s coronation in June 1509, it was Lady Pallas who brought a group of knights whom she introduced as her “scholers” to joust before the king.120 Shortly after their arrival, another group of knights approached Catherine, asking to do feats of arms against Pallas’s crew, all “for the love of Ladies.” Mary, who was present for the coronation, would have seen how such spectacle engendered a space where women reigned, taught, and inspired, and good knights bowed to their command.121 The more pastimes Henry created, the more Mary’s name entered the historical record, which testifies to her love of such festivities as well as her abilities as a dancer and her popularity at court. She traveled often, frequently with Henry; from Greenwich to Eltham to Westminster, the King’s Book of Payments preserves entries relevant to Mary’s expenses.122 A few months after the Robin Hood episode, the king and the Earl of Essex appeared in the guise of Turks at a banquet, accompanied with other gentlemen dressed as Russians, Prussians, and

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 37

2/18/2011 3:44:22 PM

38

The French Queen’s Letters

Moors, to be met by ladies disguised as Egyptian princesses, “so that the same ladies semed to be nygrost or blacke Mores. Of these foresayd vi ladyes, the lady Mary, syster unto the kyng was one . . . After that the kynges grace and the ladies had daunsed a certayne tyme they departed every one to his lodgyng.”123 This revel did not merely exhibit English interest in the exotic other but was also designed, as W. R. Streitberger notes, to “complement diplomacy” by appealing to the several ambassadors from foreign nations in residence.124 Mary thus joined Henry in wedding pastime with the interests of state. It is worth noting Charles Brandon’s presence at the same events. His skill at the joust ensured Henry’s growing attachment to him, with the attendant rise in power at court.125 It also meant that he and Mary began to know one another well. For Twelfth Night in 1511, Richard Gibson’s account book notes that Henry, Mary, and Brandon all wore garments of cloth of gold while the rest of the party were dressed in russet damask, a reflection of Brandon’s importance at court that guaranteed that Mary and Brandon were paired in the visual spectacle of the revel.126 Surrounded by pageantry, Mary was immersed in the romance tradition and its codes of behavior. Studying the patterns set in romance can provide insight into how Mary may have read her own situation, especially in light of the political issues surrounding her marriage. Though not a mirror for conduct, romances nonetheless subtly reflect societal mores about love, marriage, and politics. For instance, chivalric romances can reinforce connections between politics and love by underscoring the idea that when heroes marry their ladies, they also win kingdoms. This theme runs throughout the genre, reminding noblewomen that while beauty and grace are important, much of their personal value stems from their status as heiresses or their ability to make alliances through marriage. At the same time, romances also suggest that sometimes women can exercise agency in choosing (or at least by influencing the choice of ) a husband. For example, Jean Froissart’s romance Meliador, with which Mary was probably familiar, clearly renders the nature of such love-politics and represents the significant functions that letters perform in this enterprise.127 Full of love, chivalry, and tournaments, and set in King Arthur’s realm before the fall, before the advent of Lancelot and Guinevere, Meliador has politics at its heart, especially the politics of marriage.128 The unifying plot line involves a five-year series of tournaments designed to select the best knight in the world who will have the right to marry Hermondine, only child of the king of Scotland, and inherit the realm (lns. 1610–3). One participant in the tournament, the importunate knight Camel à Camois, plainly articulates his political ambition: “I will be King of Scotland yet, I tell you.”129 The matter is of great concern to the world; the moment Meliador, son of the Duke of Cornwall, wins the first tournament, Florée sends news to King Arthur: “tell him of the virtue / of the knight of the golden sun [Meliador], / . . . that such a knight has never been seen.”130 When Meliador is ultimately judged the best, Arthur awards him “the helm for the prize, / also the realm of Scotland, / and yours the beautiful body [of Hermondine].”131 The lady’s body is explicitly linked to the body of the realm; with her hand comes the crown. Peter Dembowski notes that this connection between politics and love enables women to take such a strong role in Meliador.132 For instance, Florée, recognizing Camel’s unsuitability, arranges the tournament to delay Hermondine’s marriage and distract the violent, impetuous Camel from pressing Hermondine too closely (lns. 1565–97). As Dembowski observes, “The men rule, but the ladies modify,

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 38

2/18/2011 3:44:22 PM

A Queenly Education

39

arrange, and ‘order’ this chivalric world. Each tournament is proclaimed by the high and mighty, but planned by a Florée or a Phenonee” (114). Froissart depicts the chivalric world as a place where women have significant political influence, a lesson that reinforced Mary’s own experiences of tournament pageantry. In Meliador, letters accomplish women’s desires. Recognizing that Hermondine cannot hope to persuade Camel to wait for the tournament unless she gives him some kind of hope, Florée instructs the princess to deceive him via a letter and so Hermondine offers to let Camel participate as her knight.133 Hermondine objects, however, to Florée appending a poem suggesting that Hermondine is ready to love Camel: “the letter pleased her well, but the rondelet was too much.”134 Countering that it is sometimes necessary to lie in a good cause, Florée reminds her friend that Camel is holding Florée’s father hostage until he is allowed to wed Hermondine (lns. 2173–2184). For Florée, the ends justify the means. Meliador thus suggests that letters are a representation of events fashioned by the writer, that letters can deceive, and ultimately, that such deception is justified in a noble cause. Florée and Hermondine lie deliberately to mislead an unwanted suitor; they use letters to maintain the connection between Meliador and Hermondine, and they act directly to make sure their marriages are appropriate for themselves and for their realms.135 The picture of marriage Meliador creates is highly suggestive of the type of power a woman could hope to wield, even a century later. Dembowski contends that “The chivalric world, the world of men, the world of Meliador would simply not function “correctly” without the occasional discreet push in the right direction that the ladies give. Thanks to their cleverness and this moral latitude, the women of Meliador play a role that foreshadows the function of diplomats . . . Women help fate” (117–8). Using such ladies as a model, as Caxton urges romance readers to do, would have provided Mary with ample justification for such epistolary intervention in her own life. Romances therefore not only reminded Mary that her marriage was political, but also showed her how to use letters to influence the outcome of her marriage. In Meliador, Froissart implies that women are practically obliged to ensure that matters of marriage and politics are resolved correctly, and that to do so, they may push the boundaries of morality slightly to achieve the desired end. Such a message had powerful implications for Mary. Women also use letters to powerful ends in another text Mary must have known: Malory’s Morte d’Arthur. Here the lovers Lancelot, Guinevere, Tristram, and Isoud all send letters to maintain contact with one another, to obtain advice, to gather and disseminate news, and to influence events.136 Isoud, who writes letters to engineer Tristram’s escape from her husband’s prison, is an excellent example of a woman who employs letters strategically in service of her love.137 According to the tradition established in these romances, to emulate Isoud or Guinevere as Caxton suggests she should, Mary had but to pick up her pen. Through the story of Elayne, the woman whose unrequited love for Lancelot led to her death, Malory provides Mary with another example illustrating how letters can be used to script events. Following the Ovidian tradition of the letter conveying a dying maiden’s final words, Elayne orders her letter to be placed with her body, linking her writing to her physical presence: “And whan the letter was wryton word by word lyke as she devysed, thenne she prayed her fader that she myght be watched untyl she were dede. And whyle my body is hote, lete this letter be put in my ryght hande, and my hande bounde faste wyth the letter untyl that I be colde.”138 Having scripted the details of her funeral, Elayne orders

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 39

2/18/2011 3:44:22 PM

40

The French Queen’s Letters

her body to be placed in a barge on the Thames, where eventually it will float to Camelot, attracting Arthur’s attention. When he and his court investigate, Guinevere espies the letter, and Arthur reads it aloud in his castle to a great company of knights; all present weep at the contents.139 The king sends for Lancelot, who sorrowfully explains his conduct but protests that love cannot be forced; nevertheless, as Elayne requested in the letter, he will offer her mass-penny and, at Arthur’s urging, will order a richly appointed funeral. Elayne’s voice dominates this scene. Demanding sympathy of all the residents of Camelot, the spectacle of her death indicts Lancelot for lack of chivalry, one of the most crucial aspects of any knight’s reputation. The beauty of her corpse and richness of her barge command the attention of all, and the bargeman’s refusal to speak ensures that her letter alone explains the situation. Arthur himself breaks the seal on the letter. One can only assume that such a scene is playing precisely as Elayne desired when she ordered her letter fixed in her dead hand. The context places the letter in powerful relief, foregrounding Elayne’s words. Through the spectacle of her death, Elayne attempts to expose Lancelot as a false knight. What precisely she hopes to gain from such exposure remains a matter of debate. Georgiana Donavin argues that through the vehicle of Elayne’s letter, Malory comments on the degradation of morals in Arthur’s court as Elayne tries to force Lancelot to take responsibility for his actions.140 It is also possible that Elayne acts out of pain of his rejection and wishes to tarnish his reputation as punishment for his inability to love her. Or, Dido-like, Elayne may seek to link her name with Lancelot’s perpetually. Whatever Elayne’s goals, even Guinevere initially condemns her knight, saying that he might have done “somme bounte and gentilnes that myghte have preserved her lyf” (531). Elayne’s letter nearly costs Lancelot everything; both his character and Guinevere’s love for him are at stake. Eventually he successfully pleads his case, but he must assume the cost of fulfilling Elayne’s last request regarding her funeral and put his grief at her death on display in order to preserve his reputation. Elayne’s letter thus achieves one of her possible desires; Lancelot’s name is forever linked with hers.141 Although she fails to discredit Lancelot or to start any crusade of moral reform among Arthur’s knights, her letter has garnered the pity and admiration of the whole court and ensured the preservation of her memory as Lancelot’s lover. Its pathos wins her compassion and attention not only from Arthur and his company, but from Malory’s readers as well. Malory’s work was not the only English romance to show how women could script events through their letters. The late fourteenth-century Athelston features a queen whose direct plea fails to move her husband Athelston to mercy, but whose letters to the Archbishop initiate the rescue of his innocent nephews. In Valentine and Orson, a tale of two noble brothers separated at birth, which was translated from the French by Henry Watson for Wynkyn de Worde ca. 1505, a woman’s letter to Valentine and the peers of France instigates the rescue of her brother, who was later better known as Charlemagne.142 If Mary read these romances, which were readily available to her, she would have been reminded yet again of the idea that women could relate otherwise immodest ideas in letters and script events to their liking through writing. Even more, these works suggest the many different roles a queen played at court. Ideally, her beauty and talents enhance the court’s reputation for magnificence; part of Camelot’s fame undeniably stems from Guinevere’s beauty and the knights her beauty inspired to greatness. If the queen is virtuous, she acts as a moral compass who can overrule her

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 40

2/18/2011 3:44:23 PM

A Queenly Education

41

husband by appealing to church authorities for support. Perhaps most of all, she is an intercessor, someone who can arrange to protect those in danger or who can grant favors to the deserving. In filling these roles, an early modern queen might exercise considerable influence on the political affairs of the realm. By looking at the reading culture in which Mary lived and the Tudor court spectacles in which she starred, it is clear that she would have been familiar with the rhetorical roles appointed to her by chivalric custom. Yet it is important to remember that such chivalric rhetoric was not merely propaganda imposed by the monarchy, but a discourse in which all members of the court also participated. For some, such as the poet Stephen Hawes, who had served as a groom of the chamber in Henry VII’s court but later fell into disfavor, it was a means of seeking patronage. His poem, The Comforte of Lovers, written sometime between 1510 and 1511, describes his past service and proclaims his loyalty to the Tudor line.143 What is fascinating for the purposes of this study of queenship, however, is that Hawes envisions Mary as the lady in his courtly love relationship, and in the process, demonstrates how an early modern courtier might employ chivalric rhetoric in his or her efforts to garner additional political power. Alistair Fox outlines the reasons for identifying Mary as the object of Hawes’s desire in The Comforte of Lovers.144 The poem’s autobiographical references signal the existence of a real-life counterpart, and the allusions to “my ladyes fader,” her future marriage to a “myghty lorde” combined with multiple mentions of the narrator’s loyalty to the “reed and whyte” (i.e., the houses of Lancaster and York) all point to Mary as the only possible candidate for Pucell, the maiden of Hawes’s poem.145 Fox’s contention that Hawes was actually in love with Mary is impossible to verify, but his conclusion—that Hawes cannot have seen himself as a serious contender for Mary’s hand and so must have been seeking a return to political favor through her influence—carries compelling implications (72). To read The Comforte of Lovers politically suggests that Hawes understood Mary as a person of significance at the court and moreover, that she could be approached using the vocabulary of chivalric discourse. From the outset, Hawes clearly signals the reader that his poem works on multiple levels. In the first stanza of the proem, he explains: The gentyll poetes | under cloudy fygures Do touche a trouth | and clokeit subtylly Harde is to construe poetycall scryptures They are so fayned | & made sentencyously For som do wryte of love by fables pryvely Some do endyte | upon good moralyte Of chyvalrous actes | done in antyquyte Whose fables and storyes ben pastymes pleasaunt To lordes and ladyes.146

Adhering to the classical proscription that good stories both teach and delight, Hawes situates the poem within a chivalric tradition and suggests that the reader prepare him/herself for more than just a tale of love. Proclaiming Lydgate, Gower, and Chaucer as his models, he takes pains to describe them as writers whose works fulfill both functions; for instance, Chaucer writes “grete bokes delectable / Lyke a good phylozophre.”147 To read the poem only as a love story, Hawes hints, is to miss matters of more serious import.

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 41

2/18/2011 3:44:23 PM

42

The French Queen’s Letters

Such matters become quickly apparent as Hawes’s poem outlines the narrator’s desire for love and proceeds to map that longing onto the courtier’s desire for recognition and reward. The title page identifies Hawes as “somtyme” groom of the chamber, simultaneously emphasizing the status once held and underscoring the present lack of a position. The first stanza after the proem portrays the narrator Amour bewailing his lack of fortune; he is “with sorowe opprest” even though he has been faithful.148 Although such complaints are typical of despairing courtly lovers, given Hawes’s proem and the unsubtle hint about his standing at court, these lines carry a double edge; his sorrow stems also from neglect by the new monarch. As the dream vision continues, an old woman appears as his guide and greets him “me thynke ye are not well / ye have caught colde | and do lyve in care.”149 Fox points out that such language would be unusual in a courtly love setting, yet an apt description for someone out of political favor.150 In this fashion Hawes’s choice of Mary for his lady is readily explained: she has the power to satisfy both desires. As a “moost fayre lady | yonge | good | and vertuous” she represents the fulfillment of chivalric ideals; as her brother’s sister, she has the political influence, if she chooses to exercise it, to give Hawes the patronage he desires.151 As Hawes hints at Mary’s identity as the lady, he employs the language of chivalry to appeal to her politically. Amour first details the services he has performed for her sake: knowing her father to have many enemies and in a position to know their “subtylte,” he feigned discontent with the current regime, giving himself “but lytell rest,” hoping to draw out their plotting and “to knowe theyr cruelte.”152 For this more than “xx woulves | dyde me touse and rent . . . That by theyr tuggynge | my lyfe was nere spent” (163–5). When he discovered disloyalty to the Tudors, he prayed to God to “Let the mount with all braunches swete / Entyerly growe” (181–2). Fox identifies that imagery as a direct reference to Henry VII’s palace Richmond (Rich-mount) and asserts that Amour’s prayer to let the branches grow is an allusion to Hawes’s support for Henry VIII’s right to the crown (65). Amour then proclaims his devotion to Mary’s family by asserting that all his books, which his enemies have tried to suppress, demonstrate his allegiance: “For the reed and whyte they wryte full true” (183–9). His spiritual guide agrees they prove his constancy, but Amour confesses he still fears his opponents Disdain, Strangeness and False Report (193–8). Nonetheless, he places his faith in Mary and hopes that “my lady wolde resorte / Unto dame mercy my payne consyder” (201–2). Such lines express Hawes’s appeal to Mary for political protection within the context of chivalric romance. Following the model of other romances, the old woman advises Amour and offers him a challenge wherein he can prove his worth to his lady. Providing yet another example of the benefits of feminine counsel, her recommendations range from conventional admonitions to be wise and cautious to the practical suggestion that he consolidate his position at court by appeasing his foes.153 The woman then brings Amour where he may see his lady: a tower decorated with greyhounds, lions, and dragons, all symbols of the English crown and Henry VII in particular, who had adopted the greyhound as one of his devices.154 Such location further connects Amour’s testing to the Tudor royal family. At the tower he sees three mirrors, each of which teaches him a lesson that will enable him to thrive at court and in token of which he wins a shield, flower, and sword of virtue as his protection.155 He will now recognize the “trappes” of his enemies, without which “I had been but loost.”156 Within the Tudor palace he earns the armor he needs to

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 42

2/18/2011 3:44:24 PM

A Queenly Education

43

be worthy of their service. His tokens won, his lady Pucell appears to offer him praise. Hawes describes Mary’s counterpart with fulsome language, underscoring that she is a lady in the true courtly love tradition by including a blazon of her golden hair, white neck, sweet face, and golden gown with green kirtle. He echoes this blazon of her person with a catalogue of her virtues, detailing her youth, prudence, gentleness, loving humility, godliness, wit, bounty, and beauty.157 Despite conforming to romance conventions in most aspects, The Comforte of Lovers denies the reader a typical resolution. As Fox notes, courtly lovers customarily win their ladies after overcoming obstacles, yet in this poem there is no such promise.158 In fact, Pucell explicitly states that he is foolish to hope for her love because she is already betrothed to “a myghty lorde.”159 What she does offer is far more realistic, and for Hawes, far more important. Before learning that she is Amour’s love, Pucell makes an implicit promise of future assistance; when she hears what he has achieved, she exclaims she can think of no gentle lady who would not “condescende to graunt your favoure.”160 Although she is not free to love him, she is nonetheless bound by that word; if she is to be a true gentle lady, she must grant him some token of her esteem. The first gift she bestows is confirmation of his worthiness: “I denye not but that your dedes do shewe / By mervaylous prowes | truely your gentylnesse.”161 Second, she advises him how to regain his standing by warning him against recklessness and pride and then bids him not to seek success too quickly, but rather to wait patiently for good fortune. Most of all, she promises that should he “governe you by wysdome ryght well,” he will make his enemies jealous, causing their machinations to backfire against themselves.162 Finally, she calls on Venus and Fortune to protect him.163 The lady gives valuable political counsel in lieu of erotic rewards. Given the identification of Pucell with Mary, Hawes appears to be appealing to the Tudor princess to fulfill her allegorical counterpart’s promises of favor. Moreover, he takes pains to create a situation in which Mary can honorably do so without risking her reputation or the all-important Spanish match. The final lines of the poem make it clear that the poet has transferred his attention from fiction to reality. Echoing the end of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, Hawes’s last stanza exceeds the boundaries of literature as he bids his poem seek out the ladies of the court: Go lytell treatyse submyte the humbly To every lady | excusynge thy neclygence Besechynge them | to remembre truely How thou doost purpose to do thy dylygence To make suche bokes by true experyence From daye to daye theyr pastyme to attende Rather to dye | then thau wolde them offende.164

Unlike Chaucer, who sends his work out to the entire world, Hawes specifically targets a female audience for his plea, thus further highlighting the connection to Mary. He proffers his diligent service in return for protection, and in the process, invites the Tudor princess to emulate a chivalric romance. To take on Pucell’s mantle, Mary need only grant Hawes her political favor. Whether she accepted his invitation is unknown. What is certain is that The Comforte of Lovers confirms the Tudor courtier’s easy slippage into chivalric discourse as a means of achieving political influence. Mary’s rank and talents guaranteed her a role in the pantheon

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 43

2/18/2011 3:44:24 PM

44

The French Queen’s Letters

of characters in chivalric romance, giving her access to a rhetoric in which her authority was strong and her influence secure.

Embodying the Alliance: A Practicum in the Politics of Marriage On February 6, 1512, Erasmus wrote to Anthony of Bergen from London, “O! thrice and four times happy our illustrious Prince Charles is who is to have such a spouse! Nature never formed anything more beautiful; and she excels no less in goodness and wisdom.”165 Such hyperbole could have been taken word for word from a description of a lady in a chivalric romance. By detailing her beauty, virtue, and wisdom, Erasmus constructs Mary as the ideal queen and proclaims that Charles’s good fortune in possessing her will rebound to the greater glory of his kingdom. Erasmus’s focus on physical beauty speaks to Mary’s ability to enhance the magnificence of her husband’s court, while his emphasis on her intelligence and virtue call attention to her role as Charles’s helpmate. An early modern queen would need to have such talents; as the living embodiment of a political alliance, she was expected to serve as intermediary between two countries, the land of her birth and the land of her husband. To some extent Mary began to fulfill that responsibility even before going to live with Charles. Mary was called the Princess of Castile from the moment her proxy wedding took place, the title a signifier proclaiming that her destiny was to leave England in order to ensure the success of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. From her clothing to the decorations in her bedchamber, everything about Mary would reflect on England. Both her father and her brother therefore spent lavishly to dazzle her future courtiers with English wealth and to demonstrate that Mary was a queen worthy of respect. A manuscript recording the details of the preparations for her departure to Castile contains notes in the hand of her father Henry, who ordered necklaces, girdles, and bracelets of gold to complete her personal adornment, while cloth of gold abounded in the ornamentation of her property, from the hangings on the walls to the cushions in her chamber to the decorations for her litter and chariot.166 So many items were designated to be made in gilt—her candlesticks, a cross, images, cups, basins, and spoons, to list a few—Midas with his golden touch might well have run his hands over all her belongings. The tapestries were to have borders embroidered with her coat of arms. A list compiled of the attendants she would require totaled over 100 people, from her chamberlain, confessor, almoner, clerks, master of the horse, and ladiesin-waiting to her grooms, waiters, ushers, and minstrel. If magnificence was a sign of consequence, Henry clearly intended his daughter to make an impression. So, after his accession, did Henry VIII; the new king ensured that Mary’s wardrobe reflected his sister’s prominence; warrants for new gowns made of velvet, satin, silk or cloth of gold, usually in warm colors—tawny, crimson, or russet—appear regularly in the archives.167 He also made certain that she had the appropriate attendants; payments were made to her servants, including a physician, a secretary, and an apothecary.168 All these expenditures were part of a visual rhetoric that proclaimed Mary’s importance at court. Nor were her father and brother the only people concerned with her attendants. As early as 1510, Maximilian and Margaret of Austria corresponded about their plans for retainers in Mary’s household.169 On March 22, 1513, Margaret

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 44

2/18/2011 3:44:24 PM

A Queenly Education

45

wrote to Henry asking that Jehan de Cerf be transferred from the service of the Earl of Surrey to that of Mary; Henry acceded and on August 24 of the same year, de Cerf was awarded an annuity of twenty pounds until the consummation of Mary’s marriage to Charles.170 Sometimes this maneuvering contained a seedier edge; Luis Caroz, the Spanish ambassador in England, wrote to Miguel Almazan, Ferdinand’s secretary of state, suggesting that if they could get a woman named Francisca de Caceres into either Mary or Catherine’s service, she would provide useful intelligence of the English court.171 That plotting continued; as late as August 15, 1514, two weeks after Mary officially renounced her marriage to Charles, Thomas Spinnelly wrote Henry from Brussels that the Spanish ambassador, with Ferdinand’s approval, desired to place Dona Kateryna de Castir in Mary’s retinue.172 As these letters indicate, choosing the proper entourage was a matter of no small import. In addition to giving advice and adding to the spectacle surrounding Mary, these attendants would have ready access to the princess, access that meant the possibility of influence. Jockeying for that entrée to power was a vital part of early modern courtiership. That it began so early, years before the marriage was due to be consummated, indicates the importance of the position Mary now held. Mary’s vows per verba de praesenti meant that she was considered married; however, until she actually traveled to the Burgundian court and consummated the marriage, it was possible to break the contract. Therefore to maintain the connection and the health of the alliance, both Mary and Charles regularly made rhetorical gestures that confirmed the marriage’s existence. The Spousells note that immediately after the proxy marriage took place: for further confirmacion and approvyng of ye foresayd marige . . . [Charles] sente dyverse letters subscribed with his owne hande aswell to the kyngs highnes namyng & acceptyng his grace for his good fader & to my lorde the Prince takyng & callyng hym his lovyng Brother. As also to my sayd lady Marye expressely callyng hir his wyfe & compayn with other as kynde and lovyng words as can be devysed to be written. (fol. 10r)

The writer explicitly underlines Charles’s intent to confirm of the match through his epistolary rhetoric. The letter to Mary, dated December 13, opens with Charles’s salutation, “My good wife” (“Ma bonne compaigne”), repeats the phrase in the body of the letter, then closes “your good husband Charles” (“votre bon mary”).173 For a letter totaling only ninety-four words in length, Charles’s emphasis on their marriage is noticeably pronounced. For her part, Mary engaged in similar gestures. She sent Charles a ring in 1509 as a token of her esteem.174 Then, on one April 13 between 1510 and 1513, while Mary was staying at Greenwich Palace, she wrote a letter to Margaret of Austria thanking her for sending some clothing patterns for current fashions in the Low Countries and expressing her best wishes to Charles as well as Margaret herself.175 On the surface, the letter’s concerns seem frivolous, of interest only because it is the earliest extant letter Mary wrote. But considering the care with which early modern writers crafted their letters to fashion a specific message, Mary’s letter demands to be read more thoroughly. Her missive reveals a delicate rhetorical touch designed to create a positive impression and to underscore subtly her awareness of her responsibilities as Princess of Castile.

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 45

2/18/2011 3:44:24 PM

46

The French Queen’s Letters

Mary’s letter deliberately stresses her affection for Margaret and Charles both. Her salutation greets Margaret as “My lady, my good aunt” (“Madame mabonne Tante”); she repeats the phrase “my good aunt” twice more, in the body of the letter and in the address written on the reverse. In this fashion Mary underlines her wedded status and claims kinship with Margaret, the dowager duchess of Savoy, a woman with great authority in the Low Countries. In her own person, Mary embodies the Anglo-Burgundian alliance; here by emphasizing her newfound family connection, she indicates that she has already begun to assume that symbolic status. For similar reasons she also asserts her relationship with Charles, calling him “my very dear and well-loved lord,” and praying that he and Margaret both have “good life and long and happy prosperity in all your affairs.”176 By voicing these feelings, genuine or not, Mary participates in a diplomacy grounded in the rhetoric of familial and marital love. Such wishes for their happiness are epistolary convention, to be sure, as is Mary’s rhetorical position at the start of the letter when she writes, “the most humbly that is possible I recommend myself to your good grace.”177 However, as her other letters reveal, Mary could express polite humility without resorting to the superlative. Even in this letter she will later offer Charles only her “humble recommendations.”178 She thus deftly fashions herself as a young virtuous princess willing to be governed by a more experienced mentor. Moreover, here Mary is writing to the woman whom Ferdinand of Aragon called the “most important personage in Christendom” given her role in mediating the disputes of the various rulers of Europe.179 For Mary to defer to Margaret’s guidance in the matter of her clothing also signals her willingness to receive Margaret’s tutelage in other, weightier concerns in the future. Mary’s expression of gratitude for the clothing patterns carries additional resonances. She thanks Margaret and explains her motivation: “Because for a long time I have had the desire to know how the ornaments and clothing that are used over there will fit me and now that I have tried them I am greatly contented with them. Hoping that it will be an easy enough thing for me to leave my accustomed way of dressing when I will find myself with you.”180 It seems perfectly natural that a teenaged girl would have concerns over whether current fashions will suit her. But given the importance of clothing as an aspect of the visual rhetoric of the court, there are more subtle layers of meaning here. One, Mary knows that as Charles’s queen she will be at the center of courtly spectacles that create a kingdom’s reputation for magnificence. As such, it is important that she will look her best when she arrives to meet her husband and his nobles. But even more, Mary’s relief that the fashion suits her becomes a metaphor for the anxieties she has had to overcome in assuming her new role. She reassures Margaret that she is ready to be Charles’s princess. Thus she is “greatly contented” not just with the clothing, but with the prospect of becoming part of the Burgundian court. Her letter becomes an important means of expressing herself and in making the first steps toward employing epistolary rhetoric to further her own (and English) political affairs. According to the tenets of diplomacy by marriage, Mary’s marriage to Charles represented the heart of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance, an alliance that was expanded when Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon immediately after his accession to the throne, announcing his renewed commitment to Spain. Through Mary’s marriage and his own, Henry hoped to forge the political ties necessary to assert the English claim to the French throne, a goal largely abandoned in the

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 46

2/18/2011 3:44:25 PM

A Queenly Education

47

chaos of the Wars of the Roses. For Maximilian and Ferdinand, alliance with England meant the opportunity to pursue their own expansions into France and Navarre. However, each of these monarchs ultimately had an eye to his own goals, so that in actuality their threefold alliance was precarious. Although they all joined Pope Julius II in his Holy League to drive the French out of Italy, both Maximilian and Ferdinand constantly sought new advantages; should occasion warrant, the match between Mary and Charles could be annulled. Still, on the strength of Charles’s existing connection to Mary, Maximilian and Margaret both found Henry a useful ally, not only for the money he could loan them, but also for the resources of his troops. In his Chronicle, Edward Hall records that in 1512, Henry sent 1500 archers to assist Margaret of Austria against Charles van Egmont, Duke of Gueldres, partly because Henry “tenderly regard[ed] the request of so noble a lady” and also partly because of the marriage of Charles and Mary (522–3). The Spanish too attempted to invade Navarre with Henry’s assistance, and on January 10, 1513, Ferdinand would write to his ambassador at Maximilian’s court that the marriage between Charles and Mary must be preserved, lest England ally itself with France instead, placing Spain and the Low Countries at great political disadvantage.181 Thus, for a time, it was in everyone’s interest to let the marriage stand and to use whatever rhetorical techniques possible to create amity between the rival rulers. Through all this jockeying for power, Mary learned how political her marriage was, what an impact her personal affairs had on international relations. In effect, this union represented the final aspect of her education. From a young age, she absorbed the tenets of her culture regarding queenship and the exercise of power. Her books taught her the influence she might wield through letters, just as her experience of tournaments and courtly spectacles inculcated a sense of how to inhabit chivalric roles to enhance her authority. With her marriage to Charles, she began to step out in front of the footlights, to move from the tournament platform to the broader stage of tangled European politics.

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 47

2/18/2011 3:44:25 PM

9780230620308_03_ch01.indd 48

2/18/2011 3:44:25 PM

CHAPTER 2

BECOMING THE QUEEN

Excerpt from Pierre Gringore’s Pageants for the Entry of Mary Tudor into Paris, 15141: Comme la paix entre dieu & les hommes Par le moyen de la vierge marie, Fus jadis faicte ainsi a present sommes Bourgoys francoys desrangez de nos sommes Car marie avec nous se marie. (lns. 1–5) As the peace between God and mankind By the means of the Virgin Mary Was already made, so now are We French relieved of our burdens For Mary is married among us again.

By including clauses in the treaty imposing heavy fines in the event either Mary or Prince Charles defaulted on their marriage, Henry VII, Maximilian, and Ferdinand tacitly acknowledged the possibility that the union would not be consummated, all marital rhetoric to the contrary. Yet surely none of them anticipated the speed with which events would shift on the European political stage. For seven years Mary had been the Princess of Castile; it took less than three months to exchange that title for that of the Queen of France, a monarch whom poets such as Pierre Gringore would celebrate as a bringer of peace comparable to the Virgin Mary. And instead of a teenaged boy, Mary’s husband would be a fifty-two-year- old man whose repeated pleas for her to set sail as soon as possible contrasted sharply with the fickle Spanish-Hapsburg allies and their repeated and humiliating delays. A second treaty signed on October 15, 1513, stipulated that Mary and Charles’s marriage would be consummated in Calais no later than May 15, 1514.2 Yet Henry became increasingly frustrated by signs of waffling from Ferdinand and Maximilian, who cited excuses ranging from rumors of plague in Calais to the age difference between the couple as reasons for delay.3 Their reluctance to commit to the marriage was matched by their vacillation in battle against France. The three monarchs had joined the Holy League of Pope Julius II ostensibly to check French expansion into Italy, yet each also sought to use the League to further his own territorial ambitions, Henry and Maximilian in France and Ferdinand in Navarre. In summer of 1513, with Maximilian’s limited assistance, Henry defeated the French in the Battle of the Spurs, winning first the town of Thérouanne and subsequently besieging and capturing the town of Tournai. At the same time, with Henry’s wife Catherine acting as his regent, the English triumphed at the Battle of Flodden, repelling the Scottish invasion and killing

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 49

2/18/2011 6:21:59 PM

50

The French Queen’s Letters

King James IV. These victories clearly impressed Maximilian, who agreed to the treaty setting Mary and Charles’s wedding for the following May. The French king Louis XII, however, was an experienced politician. Facing a dangerous concentration of powers, it was he—with the help of his wife Anne, who wrote to King James addressing him as her knight—who had induced the Scottish to attack.4 At the same time Louis sought to undermine the alliance by beginning secret negotiations with Ferdinand and offering to marry his younger daughter Renée to the Infante Ferdinand. Afterward, although the Spanish king continued to proclaim his outward loyalty to the League, he made a truce with France. In addition, by spring of 1514, Louis proposed that in lieu of Mary, Charles should wed one of his daughters. Maximilian was intrigued, and before long, Henry’s ambassadors in the Low Countries were warning him of the Emperor’s duplicity and rumors of a French match.5 By May, word had come that Maximilian had made peace. In light of these betrayals, the new Pope Leo X urged Henry to reconcile with Louis.6 Conveniently, there was a French ambassador at hand in London; Louis d’Orleans, the Duke of Longueville, had been captured—along with a number of other French nobles—at the siege of Thérouanne and sent back to England to await ransom. There he became his king’s representative, conveying Louis’s “good will” (“bonne volente”) toward Henry.7 And after the death of Louis’s queen on January 9, 1514, Longueville was poised to offer Henry a new proposal: matrimonial alliance with France. Given Ferdinand and Maximilian’s insults to Mary in particular and England in general, Henry was inclined to listen, and under cover of negotiating Longueville’s release, he could communicate with Louis without arousing suspicion. On May 5, Henry wrote to Margaret of Austria one last time to protest the delay in Mary and Charles’s marriage, and receiving no satisfactory reply, decided that English interests lay with France.8 On July 30, Mary formally renounced her marriage with Charles in front of witnesses and on August 13, she celebrated her marriage to Louis, Longueville acting as the king’s proxy. In theory Mary’s role in both marriages was the same; she was to act as the embodiment of an international alliance and facilitate strong relations between her native and adopted countries. But the marriage to Louis came with considerably higher stakes. For one, England and France were actively at war until Mary’s wedding helped cement the peace treaty. As late as May 22, Louis was asking his captains for news about the English troops landing in Calais, while on June 14, the Earl of Surrey wrote Henry that he had successfully burned all the lands around Cherbourg, a town in Normandy, in retaliation for a similar French attack on Brighton in February of that year.9 Hostilities could have resumed at any time if the peace negotiations—which included Mary’s marriage—fell through. Second, Louis was the established monarch, unlike Charles, who was still a minor; therefore, upon her marriage Mary immediately became queen consort of a powerful country she knew possessed a long and complicated relationship with England.10 Third, becoming the French queen also meant assuming the role of leading lady of a sophisticated French court, a court where she would face opposition (especially from the family of the dauphin, the king’s son-in-law, Francis d’Angoulême, who would be supplanted as heir should Mary bear Louis a son). Finally, at eighteen years, she faced marriage to a man three times her age, with all the attendant anxiety that must have caused. All evidence suggests that Mary understood exactly what was at stake for both herself and England. Pierre Gringore’s welcoming pageant invoking her as a new

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 50

2/18/2011 6:22:00 PM

Becoming the Queen

51

incarnation of the Virgin Mary bringing peace to earth might have set impossibly high expectations, yet his hyperbole served to underscore the significance of her role. As queen, she had to forge a solid relationship between Henry and Louis, partly by acting as an ambassador with unique access to each monarch, partly by publicly performing the rhetoric of affection necessary to reinforce the marital alliance. The other spectacles that welcomed her to France echoed Gringore’s message, outlining a position of rhetorical power for the new queen. Mary’s letters and other period documents reveal her awareness of the obstacles she faced and illustrate the methods she used to garner additional political influence so that she could fulfill her responsibilities and secure her position as a strong monarch in her own right. Examining the epistolary and spectacular rhetoric she employed throughout her tenure as Louis’s queen reveals the varied paths to power an early modern queen might take. This chapter therefore considers each episode in Mary’s marriage—from the carefully orchestrated proxy wedding (and ceremonial bedding) in England to the elaborate welcome and celebration of her coronation to the political machinations she devised through letters—in order to determine how she sought to increase her authority and to act as effective intercessory between the English and the French.

Doing Henry’s “good pleasure” On July 30, 1514, Mary summoned the most powerful English lords to the royal manor of Wanstead to act as witnesses to her renunciation of the marriage with Charles of Castile. In front of the Dukes of Suffolk and Norfolk and three bishops, including Thomas Wolsey, Mary announced that because she had heard that Prince Charles’ nearest companions were agitating against the Tudor siblings, she was resolved never to marry him. Moreover, she declared that she had never had any wifely affection toward him (“maritali Affectione”) and that she was not acting out of “any fears, threats or pressure but out of her own mind and of her own accord.”11 Therefore, she requested that the assembled nobles would beg Henry to “accept it in good part, and not to be angry on that account, because she would always be prepared to do his highness’s good pleasure in all things.”12 Mary’s assertion that she acted alone in this matter was deliberately disingenuous. There were French deputies present at the ceremony who affirmed Louis’s oath of peace with England. On the previous day, Louis had officially commissioned Longueville to negotiate an alliance with Henry and a marriage with Mary.13 Moreover, Henry and Louis had been discussing the match since May, if not earlier, and matters had sufficiently progressed that by June 4, Henry was able to send regrets and a polite referral to his ambassadors in response to Margaret of Austria’s latest request to alter the ceremony between Charles and Mary.14 By midJune rumors were beginning to fly amongst other European courts.15 There can be no doubt that Mary was fully aware of the agreement with Louis and that Henry had authorized (if not ordered) his sister to break the compact with Charles. In light of these facts, Mary and Henry must have seen rhetorical value in staging the scene to characterize Mary’s actions as her independent choice.16 Perhaps this public rejection of the Spanish prince, particularly the declaration of her lack of affection for him, was intended to gain the Tudor siblings some small recompense for the humiliation and expense of the aborted nuptials. But more likely, given that the success of marital diplomacy relied so heavily on the rhetoric of family ties, Mary and Henry wanted to communicate firmly their repudiation

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 51

2/18/2011 6:22:01 PM

52

The French Queen’s Letters

of the Spanish alliance, thus clearing the way for an Anglo-French partnership. Mary’s voice was all the more powerful for seeming to be founded in a personal anger at Charles’s disloyalty. Yet the language of Mary’s renunciation also conveys another vital message: the loyalty of sister to brother. She claims to reject Charles because he has listened to counselors who have prejudiced him against Henry and herself. Under such circumstances, Mary could not perform effectively her unique role as wifely/sisterly ambassador, therefore undermining any marital alliance between England, Spain, and the Low Countries. She effectively announces that she is unwilling to marry a man unlikely to cooperate with Henry in future endeavors, something that would also diminish Mary’s own status and influence at both courts. She insists on the importance of the sibling bond as a means of diplomacy and demands a marriage where she would be able to serve the desires of both husband and brother. Furthermore, when staging her anxiety over Henry’s forgiveness, Mary avows her willingness to do her brother’s “good pleasure in all things,” signaling her intent to continue her support of him in any other marriage that might be proposed. In so doing, she adheres to early modern conventions of sibling relationships that relied on the significance of brother–sister connections. As Naomi Miller and Naomi Yavneh note, “sisters . . . were often constructed as their brothers’ ‘treasures,’ both because they could be married off and because they look out for their brothers’ interests, monetarily, socially, or even emotionally.”17 In this instance, Mary stresses that she and Henry are a team and that her husband could expect enormous resources if he were to join in a true marital alliance and win Henry as a brother. In renouncing the match with Charles, however, Mary was also publicly announcing that she was entitled to make decisions about whom she would marry and that she would act of “her own mind and accord.” By grounding her objections in the rhetoric of sisterly affection and duty, Mary was able to reject marriage plans made by both her father and brother. Although in this instance she did so with Henry’s “secret” good will, he must never have dreamed what a precedent was set in that moment, that his sister might one day defy him to marry “of her own mind” once more. At this juncture, Henry focused on the benefits he would derive by marrying his sister to the French king. Materially speaking, he would receive one million crowns paid out in yearly installments as well as the rights to retain the conquered towns of Tournai and Thérouanne.18 In addition, Louis agreed to exile Richard de la Pole, the last of the remaining York heirs, to Metz. In exchange, Henry gave Mary a dowry of 400,000 crowns, half to be paid in the jewels, clothing, and other expenses related to her outfitting and transportation to France, the rest to be remitted against the aforementioned debt.19 Beyond such monetary considerations, Henry had won an alliance with the French king that excluded both Maximilian and Ferdinand, a diplomatic triumph he must have savored all the more in the face of their double-dealing. Furthermore, allied with Louis, Henry could pursue a new set of territorial ambitions, such as pressing his wife Catherine’s claim to the throne of Castile. Mary’s new husband shared her brother’s appetite for acquisition—with English assistance, Louis could pursue his long-desired, long-deferred claim to the duchy of Milan.20 For his part, Henry was fully aware of the French king’s aspirations; in a letter to Wolsey describing the negotiations with Longueville, Henry explains that he demanded certain sums of money from the French, “Whyche, yff your

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 52

2/18/2011 6:22:01 PM

Becoming the Queen

53

Master [Louis] considere what Herytaunce he holdyth frome Me, and what good my Amyte may do to helpe for the hys Mater in Italy, I thinke he wyll nat grettly styke att.21 This marital alliance opened up possibilities both monarchs were eager to pursue. Equally, Louis wanted peace with the English, whose military maneuvers had represented a potentially serious threat. Francis Godwin, writing a history in 1630, notes that popular opinion held “that this victory (if we had but made due use of it) laid an easie way for us to the conquest of France: For the French were so affrighted with the newes of this overthrow, that they thought of nothing but flying; and the King himselfe with teares in his eyes bewailing his hard fortune, cast about for some place of refuge.”22 Although this account displays heavy English bias, Godwin was hardly alone in seeing the Battle of the Spurs as an English triumph. Shortly after news of the defeat spread, the French poet Guillaume Crétin excoriated his countrymen: Will you let the eagle thus steal so low, Even to tread the field of the fleurs-de-lis? Will you suffer this country to panic? . . . Men without courage lose fame and renown.23 Moreover, Louis was clearly alarmed enough to take action to disrupt the AngloSpanish partnership by negotiating with both James of Scotland and Ferdinand of Aragon and to continue requesting reports of English troop movements up through May of 1514. Once Louis was a widower, marrying Mary would have seemed a natural method of securing peace. Beyond these shared goals, Louis had one additional desire: a son. The nearest male heir was his cousin Francis, the Duke of Angoulême, who had cemented his claim as dauphin by marrying Claude, the elder of Louis’s daughters, only that May. Yet historical anecdotes suggest Louis’s frustration with Francis’s blatant ambition.24 On June 17, the Venetian ambassador in England, Andrea Badoer, wrote his counterpart in Rome that Louis had told Francis that he would remarry and have a son, which meant that Francis should remain a duke.25 Of the available ladies, eighteenyear-old Mary presented the best solution to Louis’s dynastic hopes. Given the obvious attractions of her person and the possibility of peace with England, Louis settled on the Tudor princess and acted decisively, moving with an alacrity that must have been gratifying to Henry and Mary after months of Spanish wavering. Yet where history admits Louis’s and Henry’s ambitions, it has largely overlooked Mary’s complex motivations. Godwin’s 1630 account speculates that “on Her part the publique weale, the authoritie of her brother so willing, and (which beares chiefest sway in a womans heart) the supremacy of honor in the title of a Queen, were motives to match so Uneven a Paire” (26). Godwin’s conjecture is borne out by Mary’s own testimony. In a letter written in April 1515, she reminds Henry that “Though I understode that he [Louis] was verray aged and sikely yet for the advauncement of the said peax [peace] and for the furtheraunce of your causes I was contented to conforme my self to your said mocionn.”26 She asserts a desire to serve both Henry and her country by helping to cement peace between the warring nations. There can be no doubt that such peace was inextricably linked to her marriage with Louis—Henry’s official proclamation of the treaty announced specifically the “alliance by way of marriage.”27

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 53

2/18/2011 6:22:01 PM

54

The French Queen’s Letters

Like Henry and Louis, Mary surely also desired prestige and power. Indeed, reporting on the betrothal celebration, Badoer commented that Mary’s pleasure at being queen outweighed the disadvantages of marriage to a sickly man so much older than she.28 Although Badoer expressed surprise at her enthusiasm, it cannot be denied that as queen of France, Mary would possess both the highest rank possible for a woman and considerable political influence as de facto ambassador between her husband and brother. Although hindsight reveals that the French marriage was destined to be short-lived, in 1514, neither Mary nor Henry could know that for certain. Despite rumors of Louis’s ill-health, it was possible he (and therefore Mary) could reign for years; in the event Louis’s hopes of an heir were fulfilled, Mary might remain in France as regent until her son’s majority. Either alternative promised great political power. Even as queen dowager after Louis’s death, Mary would retain an elevated status for life, together with the concomitant income from her generous dower revenues and the elegant trappings of royalty. Furthermore, the marriage treaty stipulated that Mary was free to return to England with her jewels and other effects if she so chose.29 The marriage thus guaranteed Mary financial benefits and political authority; it is hardly surprising that she looked forward to ascending the throne, even if it meant at Louis’s side. Set alongside the similar desires of her brother and husband-to-be, her ambitions are eminently reasonable. However willing Mary might be to marry for political gain, she nonetheless anticipated the possibility of Louis’s death, and Henry’s eagerness to consolidate the French match gave her the high ground in negotiations. Her letters reveal that before she agreed to the marriage, she exacted an extraordinary promise from Henry: “that if I shulde fortune to survive the said late king I mygt with your good wil marye my self at my libertie withoute your displeasor.”30 That Mary claims agency over her future marriage signifies both her independence and confidence in her own worth.31 She knows that as queen dowager of France, she would remain a valuable marital commodity and by seeking to forestall any future maneuvering, she attempts to control her own destiny. What reference, if any, she made to Charles Brandon at this time is less certain. She does, later in the same letter, remind Henry, “as ye wel knowe I have always bornn good mynde towardes my lorde of Suffolk,” but whether she voiced any preference at the time she gained Henry’s word is unknown. Regardless, Henry’s concession meant that in marrying Louis, Mary chose the husband who seemed likely to bring the greatest eventual advantages to herself, Henry, and England.

International Reactions In the prologue of Shakespeare’s II Henry IV, Rumour enters “painted full of tongues” to ask “which of you will stop the vent of hearing when loud Rumour speaks?”32 He brags of “stuffing the ears of men with false reports,” before defining himself as a pipe blown by surmises, Jealousy’s conjectures, And of so easy and so plain a stop That the blunt monster with uncounted heads, The still- discordant wav’ring multitude, Can play upon it. (lns. 8, 15–20)

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 54

2/18/2011 6:22:01 PM

Becoming the Queen

55

This evocative portrait of Rumour must have resonated with his audience; in an era far removed from the twenty-four-hour news cycle, kings and courts relied on the reports of ambassadors and visitors abroad for the latest information. Sorting fact from fiction often proved difficult; hence it took time for the delicious gossip of the change in Mary’s prospective bridegroom—from teenaged prince to aged king—to travel throughout Europe. On June 12, Margaret of Austria informed Maximilian that Sir Thomas Bohier was in England, ostensibly to negotiate Longueville’s ransom, yet she suspected an ulterior motive and recommended he investigate.33 A few days later, on June 17, Badoer wrote the Venetian ambassador in Rome that there was a secret negotiation behind Longueville’s ransom and that Louis might well be seeking to marry Henry’s sister Mary.34 The Milanese ambassador in Rome, Marino Carracciolo, notified his duke, Massimiliano Sforza, that Louis was reputedly considering marriage to Mary or Margaret Tudor or perhaps not wedding at all.35 Even as this speculation spread, Margaret of Austria’s ambassador Gerard de Pleine arrived in England and, after seeing Mary, urged Margaret to finalize Charles’s marriage to the Tudor princess.36 The same day de Pleine penned a second letter, Vetor Lippomano wrote to Venice from Rome saying that the intelligence had come that Louis would wed Mary, not her sister Margaret.37 As the rumor gradually gained credence as fact, it sparked radically different reactions, from disbelief to rejoicing to consternation to calculation, underscoring how the substitution in Mary’s bridegroom was not merely titillating gossip but also an important marker of shifting international relations. The reverberations of Mary and Louis’s marriage were quickly felt around Europe. The various Italian city-states reacted the most positively to the peace, especially when they received reports in October that Louis had encouraged Henry to attack Castile, inducing Ferdinand to forego territorial expansion in Italy.38 The Milanese, more nervous about Louis’s ambitions regarding their duchy, must have been relieved to hear that the French king’s marriage would delay his campaign for another year.39 Pope Leo X, who had long desired peace in Europe in order to check Turkish advances, wrote Henry blessing the marriage. 40 On either side of the English Channel, reactions to the news were mixed, largely due to the history of tension between the French and English. An anonymous letter to Jacques de Luxembourg, the governor-general of Flanders, reported that many of the English were afraid that should Louis die, so too might the peace. 41 Of course, given Luxembourg’s own loyalties to Charles, such information may well have been colored by what the sender knew his recipient wished to hear. Nonetheless, another Venetian ambassador in England, Nicolò di Favri, reported that no public celebrations of the peace took place, nor did many people hear the proclamation. Although Richardson speculates that the English kept the news quiet to surprise Ferdinand and Maximilian, it seems more likely that after years of anticipating a Spanish match, it was hard for the English to respond optimistically to the shifting alliances. 42 For the most part, the French who had reservations seem to have kept silent, at least initially. According to Charles Somerset, the earl of Worcester, Sir Thomas Docwra, and Dr. Nicholas West, Henry’s French ambassadors, the marriage was widely popular.43 The Tudor historian Polydore Vergil went further, proclaiming that “This marriage alliance and the peace which went with it, puffed up French pride to a quite remarkable degree, so that that they were unable to control themselves.”44 Vergil’s typical English bias notwithstanding, it is certain that the

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 55

2/18/2011 6:22:02 PM

56

The French Queen’s Letters

French organized elaborate preparations to welcome Mary (and, not incidentally, further their country’s reputation for magnificence) with all the major nobility traveling to await her arrival in France. 45 There was opposition, most notably the dauphin Francis, as well as his mother Louise and his sister Marguerite. After Mary and Louis’s wedding, Francis admitted his initial nervousness, telling Robert de Fleuranges that he was “more joyful and at ease” since he had discovered—unless he had been lied to—that Louis and Mary could not conceive a child.46 On the whole, however, regardless of any anti-Anglo sentiment, the French turned out in force to welcome their new queen. The reactions of Spain and the Low Countries were predictably negative. The Venetians’ Spanish ambassador reported that Ferdinand was greatly disturbed and mistrustful of all concerned.47 In the Low Countries, opinions were even more vocal denouncing the match. Hall reports the anger of the Dutch who “spake shamefully of this mariage, that a feble old & pocky man should mary so fayre a lady, but the voys of people let not princes purposes.”48 Maximilian was particularly vicious in his condemnation, lamenting that “such a fair and virtuous princess should come to an impotent, indisposed, and so malicious a prince as is the French King.”49 Ultimately, notes Badoer, both the Spanish and Imperial ambassadors left London as a result of the low esteem in which their masters were held.50 The indignation of the Low Countries may also be measured in a story circulated about Prince Charles’s supposed reaction to the news. According to Favri, who recounted the story as it was told in England, when informed by his advisers that as a young prince he must bow to the desires of the more powerful Louis, Charles seized a hawk and plucked its feathers in front of his council. When they protested, he persisted, angrily retorting: Thou askest me why I plucked this hawk; he is young, you see, and has not yet been trained, and because he is young he is held in small account, and because he is young he squeaked not when I plucked him. Thus have you done by me: I am young, you have plucked me at your good pleasure; and because I was young I knew not how to complain; but bear in mind that for the future I shall pluck you.51

Whether or not the story is apocryphal is uncertain, but that Favri reports the tale is compelling evidence of international interest in the situation and the English desire to mock their erstwhile allies. The distasteful story of the hapless hawk notwithstanding, Charles, Margaret, and Maximilian must have been dismayed at the loss of the monetary and military benefits of the English alliance (at least without any similar alliance in its place). But de Pleine’s letter to Margaret reveals further reason why Mary’s marriage to Louis should produce such an outcry: the loss of Mary herself. Urgently pleading with Margaret to work harder for the execution of the marriage, he describes Mary thus: “I assure you that she is one of the most beautiful girls one could ever wish to see and it doesn’t seem to me that I have ever seen one so beautiful, she has very great grace and the most handsome manner that could be devised, in dancing or anything else possible to have, and she is not at all melancholy, but very entertaining.”52 Mary’s good looks and charm would have been an asset to any court, particularly given early modern society’s emphasis on magnificence and

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 56

2/18/2011 6:22:02 PM

Becoming the Queen

57

spectacle. De Pleine further advises that not only will Charles and Maximilian act dishonorably if they do not keep their word but also that the personage [Mary] is so well qualified that there is nothing but to repeat that there is none who can match her for goodness, beauty, and age in all Christendom. [Charles] is and will inherit many great realms and seigneuries and to attain them, this alliance will greatly assist him and there is nothing one could think of that he could do that would be of greater assistance and aid to his cause.53

Here the emphasis is not on Henry’s wealth and power, but rather the gifts that Mary herself will bring to Charles, advantages that will assist him in securing his hold on the different kingdoms to which he was heir. De Pleine’s missive was too late to make a difference; by the time he wrote, that prestige and reputation for beauty and grace were bound for France. Small wonder Charles protested so vociferously, if belatedly, at his loss of such a wife. Although biographers have largely focused on de Pleine’s description of Mary’s appearance, it is worth noting that his letter also reveals her political acumen.54 The ambassador remarks that Mary has been encouraged to think well of the prince and that she loves Charles marvelously, since he hears that she keeps his portrait (albeit a terrible one) nearby and ten times daily expresses her desire to see him. Moreover, he notes, the best way to please her is to speak of the prince.55 Rather than imagine her genuinely sighing over the ugly picture of Charles, we might more profitably recognize this as a tactful display of diplomacy. After all, only one month after this letter proclaiming her marvelous love, Mary would renounce her betrothal by publicly declaring her lack of feeling. Far more likely is that she engaged in the rhetoric of affection to preserve the fiction of amity between England and the Low Countries, all the while hiding the extent of negotiations with the French. Moreover, Mary’s actions also indicate her understanding that the success of a marital alliance depended greatly on her ability to perform publicly her affection for her husband, a skill she would now be required to employ in France.

Binding a Proxy Marriage Having ample experience of the precariousness of proxy marriages, the Tudors acted swiftly to cement the match between Mary and Louis. Less than a week after Mary renounced the betrothal with Charles, Henry and Longueville signed the peace treaty between England and France and then publicly proclaimed the news three days later on August 10. On August 12, Henry wrote Pope Leo justifying the change in husbands. One day after that, just two weeks after Mary abandoned her status as Princess of Castile, she wedded Louis in an elaborate ceremony, with Longueville acting as proxy to pronounce his sovereign’s vows.56 Although Henry had only weeks to prepare for this marriage, he was as eager to impress his new French allies as he had been the Spanish, and therefore planned a sumptuous ceremony at Greenwich designed to signify his sister’s new consequence. Such details are an important element of what Mary Hazard refers to as the “silent language” of early modern courts: “not only graphic images, but also architecture, the decorative arts, pageants, protocol, and even silence itself could

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 57

2/18/2011 6:22:02 PM

58

The French Queen’s Letters

convey threat, reprimand, or praise, as well as other, more complex meanings that defy categorization.”57 A letter from Nicolò di Favri, who was part of the Venetian embassy, provides a record of the otherwise ephemeral spectacle; he confirms the splendor of the Tudor efforts, noting that the chamber where the ceremony was to take place was arrayed with cloth of gold and the royal arms, while the English lords dressed in their finest silks and cloth of gold, all wearing gold chains.58 Henry, Catherine, Mary, and other ladies processed in together with Longueville and the other French ambassadors. After the celebrant William Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a sermon in Latin, Longueville delivered his monarch’s vows.59 Voicing the same phrases, Mary pronounced her vows in French, proclaiming that she willingly pledged her faith to Louis and consented to take him as her husband and spouse from that day forward.60 By using her husband’s language instead of her native tongue, Mary signaled her new allegiance. After mass, the English held a great banquet followed by a ball in which Henry participated so vigorously that Favri notes that even the aged Venetian ambassador was almost tempted to join the dancers.61 By dancing with his sister so energetically, Henry publicly displayed his youth and vigor as well as his joy at the union, all messages calculated to impress representatives from foreign courts. The visual spectacle was carefully designed to convey the close alliance of England and France, down to the fabrics worn by the major players. Taking note, Favri records that Henry wore a gown of cloth of gold and ash- colored satin, in chequers, with certain jewelled embroidery in his own fashion and a most costly collar round his neck. The Duke of Longueville walked nearly in line with the King, wearing a gown of cloth of gold and purple satin in chequers, and a most beautiful collar. After the King came the Queen, (who is pregnant) clad in ash- colored satin, with chains and jewels, and on her head a cap of cloth of gold, covering the ears in the Venetian fashion. Beside her was the King’s sister, the bride, a girl of 16, with a petticoat of ash- colored satin, and a gown of purple satin and cloth of gold in chequers; she wore a cap of cloth of gold, and chains and jewels like the Queen.62

Most significantly, it was Mary’s costume that combined the colors worn by her brother and sister-in-law—ash satin and cloth of gold—with the purple satin worn by Longueville in his monarch’s place. Thus her clothing mirrored her role in the peace; by harmoniously blending the fabrics worn by the two kings (Louis by proxy) she foreshadowed her unification of the two countries. The symbolism did not stop at clothing. To confirm the strength of the new marriage, Mary and Longueville even held a mock consummation of the wedding night. According to a letter written to Antonio Triulzi, the Bishop of Asti, Mary formally disrobed in the presence of witnesses and got into bed. There she was joined by Longueville, still wearing his doublet and hose, but with one leg naked (“gamba nuda”) with which he touched Mary’s leg. The marriage was declared symbolically consummated; Henry led the English in public rejoicing, and the author of the letter adds that they celebrated the same at Abbeville in France. This simulated bedding might seem bizarre, but moving from the verbal and visual rhetoric to sensory action added one more level of pageantry proclaiming the match to be real.63 Following these festivities, Longueville and the other ambassadors departed for France, after receiving presents from Henry signifying his gratitude for their

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 58

2/18/2011 6:22:03 PM

Becoming the Queen

59

efforts.64 Mary also sent the Earl of Worcester to France to act as her proxy in a similar marriage celebration (although there is no record of similarly staged marital sex).65 Elaborate preparations for Mary to follow them in a manner befitting the status of the queen of France then began, while on the opposite side of the Channel the French organized welcoming pageantry. While waiting, Mary and Louis began an exchange of letters designed to project a strong alliance. Such epistolary rhetoric complemented the spectacular rhetoric of the pageants and opulent clothing, providing an additional set of signals through which Mary crafted her persona to establish a position of power. To understand the nuances of Mary’s letters in this correspondence, it is important to understand the late medieval concept of the letter as a tangible link between its writer and recipient. The frequent letter exchanges in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, a work Mary must have known well, provide a primer of the tropes of epistolary rhetoric that Mary knew and thus afford a lens through which to read her letters.66 For instance, Chaucer foregrounds the physicality of the letter and the connection it creates between the lovers. When Troilus nervously asks Pandarus for assistance, the wily counselor advises him to blot his writing with tears to make the letters a representative of his pain and desire.67 Troilus heeds the advice, bathing his missive with “salte teris” and kissing the paper before mentioning that a blissful destiny awaits it: “my lady shal the see!” (II.1086–92). Through his tears, Troilus has been incorporated into the letter; when Criseyde touches the paper, she will be in contact with him. Through that tenuous link Troilus approaches Criseyde while maintaining a veil of discretion that allows her to consider his request without facing the immediacy of his person. The physical connection between Troilus’s person and his letter illuminates the moment of near violence with which the letter is delivered to its addressee. When Criseyde rejects the letter, Pandarus angrily states, “Refuse it naught;” then he “hente hire faste, / And in hire bosom the lettre down he thraste” (II. 1155). Words like “thraste” or “thrust,” and “hente” or “grabbed,” indicate the intensity of the moment. In the face of Criseyde’s reluctance, Pandarus becomes desperate; he is invested in seeing his niece and Troilus become lovers. Thrusting the paper down into her clothing, he initiates the relationship through an act that approximates rape. By contrast, in Chaucer’s source, Boccaccio’s Il Filostrato, Criseyde takes the letter more readily; she smiles and takes “the letter and put[s] it in her bosom.”68 Chaucer’s violent alteration of the scene underscores the significance of the letter as a symbol of the writer’s presence. A letter also indicates its sender’s intentions and emotions. In the lovers’ relationship, ink equates with time, which equates with caring; when Criseyde responds to Troilus’s initial love letter, she tells Pandarus that she never did anything “with more peyne than writen this” (II.1231–2). The epistle might have been painful for Criseyde, but when Pandarus peers over Troilus’s shoulder to examine it, he notes happily how much ink is on the page (II.1320). At the end of the poem, when Criseyde is in the Greek camp, Troilus writes frequently and desperately; “to her he wroot yet ofte tyme al newe / Ful pitously” (V.1583–4). Attempting to catch her attention, he again weeps on these missives, but his epistolary ploys no longer work, save to evoke her pity (V.1597–9). When Criseyde, now involved with Diomede, finally responds, she apologizes that her letters are so short: “Th’entent is al, and nat the lettres space” (V.1630). Criseyde’s affection wanes with her letters’ length, as though she is deliberately giving him less of herself. Thus, through the letters, Chaucer maps the entire course of the relationship, could Troilus but see.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 59

2/18/2011 6:22:03 PM

60

The French Queen’s Letters

Recognizing this code sheds light on the letters exchanged between Mary and Louis before her passage across the Channel. Anxiously waiting for Mary to arrive in France, Louis sent frequent word of his eager desire to see her and begged that she write to him in the meanwhile. When she failed to correspond as often as he wanted, Louis took stronger measures, ordering a messenger to report first to Wolsey and explain that he has been charged by his king to obtain news and letters from Mary and Henry, “because that is the thing that I desire most in this world.”69 He then requested that Wolsey “take pains to present [the messenger] to his said wife” so as to ensure his access to her, presumably so that the bearer could convey Louis’s wishes to Mary directly.70 In the absence of Mary’s person, letters from her would testify to her affection for Louis and perform the closeness of the new Anglo-French alliance. Indeed, Louis fretted so much over any delay in preparations for Mary’s journey that Longueville and Bohier, the two commissioners responsible for her departure, pleaded with Mary to respond to the king precisely in order to stave off his complaints.71 On September 2, Bohier informed her, “the king is very much disconcerted that you do not write to him of your welfare, and that your affairs over there are not dispatched as quickly as he wishes them to be; wherefore, madam, I entreat you most humbly to have the goodness to write to him, and to do whatever in you lies to come as soon as possible.”72 Louis’s ambassadors recognized the importance of the epistolary exchange in laying the foundation for a successful marital alliance. Their anxiety that Mary respond quickly indicates their awareness of an epistolary vocabulary that defines her writing as a kind of presence that will suffice to placate Louis’s demands. Although Mary responded by sending the impatient monarch a series of three epistles assuring him of her affection, the letters are marked chiefly by their brevity and formality. Judging by Criseyde’s measure of a relationship, Mary’s first letter indicates little enthusiasm for her royal husband. Mary even acknowledges the succinctness, “And because by my cousin you will hear how all things have taken their end and conclusion, and the very singular desire that I have [to see you and to be in your company] I forbear to make you a longer letter.”73 She suggests she knows that the message she is sending is almost insultingly short and proffers further oral communication to avoid offense. Mary also counteracts the difficulties presented by the letter’s length by writing to Louis with her own hand, a fact she highlights in her closing, “dee la main de votre humble compagne Marie.” In that same letter, she thanks Louis for writing to her with his own hand. Like Troilus’s tears, writing in one’s own hand was a sign of the connection between the sender and the recipient. This trope is a longstanding feature of epistolary rhetoric; in the Heroides, Ovid’s Hypsipyle reproaches Jason for not writing news of his success to her in his hand, (“en ta main,”) saying that she would have been happy to boast of his deeds if only she’d heard about them from him: “spoken and told by your pleasing hand, [I would be] telling everyone that Jason wrote me.”74 A letter in Jason’s own hand will prove his enduring love, not only to herself, but to those who doubt his affection. Here Hypsipyle underscores the performative nature of the letter. Not merely a private expression of his love, the letter’s arrival and its contents would publicly demonstrate Jason’s continued commitment to her. Similarly, Mary’s emphasis on writing the letter herself stages her affection for Louis. The pains she took in penning the message herself enshrine her presence more fully in the letter, so that the document becomes a tangible symbol of her supposed feelings for him. Since her

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 60

2/18/2011 6:22:03 PM

Becoming the Queen

61

letters to Louis would not be private, but rather public documents that would be read by others in his court, her gesture represents a rhetorical move designed to announce her love. The more Mary was able to strengthen the bond between the two countries, the greater the chance of the alliance’s success; peace therefore depended greatly on her ability to perform such gestures. Mary’s choice to write in her own hand and to highlight that fact thus indicates both her rhetorical and political acuity. Regardless of her actual feelings, by her second letter, Mary was fully engaged in the epistolary exchange, fashioning the image of a loving wife eager to meet her new husband.75 Unlike Criseyde, who discourages Troilus’s outpourings, Mary asks for Louis to write often: “I assure you, my lord . . . that the thing that I most desire and wish for today is to hear good news of you, your health and good prosperity.”76 Her third letter carries that further: “Beseeching you, my lord, to please me in the meanwhile, for my very singular consolation, often to make known news of you.”77 By expressing such desires, Mary performs publicly her ardor for her new husband. Her delight in hearing from him, her appreciation of his letters, all shape the image of a wife truly in love with her husband. If her prestige depended on Louis’s approval, then Mary would do what she could to enhance his feelings for her. The more often Louis wrote, the greater the proof of his favor, and by extension, the more influence she would have at both English and French courts. Mary’s enthusiastic promises to please Louis extend this rhetoric of wifely affection further. In her last letter before leaving for Calais, she opens by thanking him for “the very affectionate letters that it has pleased you lately to write to me which have been to me a very great joy and comfort, assuring you, my Lord, that there is nothing more that I desire than to see you.”78 After staging her love, Mary provides proof of her willingness to obey Louis’s desires by explaining that Henry is doing all he can to expedite her departure, and, in the meanwhile, she begs Louis to do her the “singular consolation” of writing to her often to tell her all his “good and agreeable pleasures, in order for me to obey and please you.”79 Thus Mary moves from merely expressing her obligations to Louis in the first letter to vows to please and obey him in all things in the last. Each letter increases in fervor, proclaiming her readiness to be Louis’s true wife. In so doing, Mary claims not only her rights as his spouse but also her authority as his queen. Mary’s letters seem to have appealed to Louis, who wrote Wolsey delightedly about the relationship between France and England, claiming “that there is no amity nor alliance in Christendom that I hold more dear.”80 In his effusive praise, he includes his pleasure in his wife and asks Wolsey to thank Mary for her letters which express such affection, and to say that he desires to see her as much as she does him.81 By asking Wolsey to tell Mary this himself, Louis desires that Mary receive public recognition of his approval of her sentiments. Moreover, he also confirms her welcome in France by proclaiming his equal longing for her presence. Through this exchange of letters, Mary and Louis announce the strength of the Anglo-French union based on a loving marriage that will create a close relationship between the two kings. What their real feelings toward one another were cannot be discerned, nor are their feelings (in this instance) really that important, for what they chose to say and how they expressed themselves is far more telling. What their romantic-seeming letters truly attempted to project was a firm alliance between the Tudors and the Valois.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 61

2/18/2011 6:22:04 PM

62

The French Queen’s Letters

Becoming a Sovereign Lady Mary’s second experience of proxy married life must have invoked memories of the aftermath of her betrothal to Charles: the change in title (albeit this time to Queen of France), the elaborate exchange of gifts and letters, the expensive outfitting, all were reminiscent of her earlier situation. Yet there was a marked difference between her bridegrooms that far outweighed the disparity in their ages; Mary’s marriage to Louis brought her greater prestige and considerably more immediate authority than the match with Charles of Castile. Although doubtless part of this increased power was due to her age and ability to act, from the outset, Mary began to assume the duties of a queen and received the respect to which her office entitled her. The first sign of her new authority came three days after the proxy wedding via a letter from Longueville: the opening salvo in the marital correspondence. After the duke tells her that Louis is anxious to hear from her and approves the plan to meet in Abbeville, Longueville’s role transforms from messenger to petitioner; he offers Mary his humble service and reminds her that she may command him in anything she might desire. Immediately after that offer, he asks her for a favor, soliciting her assistance on behalf of Jehan Cavalcanty, a merchant in London whose cargo had been confiscated.82 Because Cavalcanty had done some service for Longueville, the duke now asks her to act on his behalf by using her influence with Henry, writing “I beg you my lady that it will please you to be of help to him with regard to the said lord [Henry].”83 Longueville’s request underscores one of the primary duties of Mary’s new role: to intercede on behalf of her subjects by drawing on her close relationship with her brother. Presumably if Mary did act, she did so verbally, and no record exists of any such intervention. Yet her willingness to do so in later instances suggests that she might well have done so here. The only further record of Cavalcanty is of his reimbursing Henry’s arras maker 495 pounds (the bulk of the debt) for tapestries made for Mary’s use in France.84 This sum may indicate his cargo was restored; perhaps his payment here was part of a fine, perhaps a gift for Mary, but that is pure speculation. What is more significant is Longueville’s request for her intercession, that the duke calls on her as “the queen, my sovereign lady,” to act, indicating that Mary was now perceived as a power worth courting.85 The frenetic swirl of preparations for Mary’s departure points to the second of the duties Mary assumed from the outset: spectacle. As queen of France, Mary would be at the center of visual rhetoric designed to showcase the splendor of the French court. As representative of the English alliance, she also needed to uphold the honor of her brother and her realm. Her manners, her dress, her action, her courtiers, even her household goods would all be scrutinized by representatives of foreign kings as well as her future subjects as evidence of English magnificence. Again Henry lavished money on his sister, ensuring she would uphold English pride. An extant document summarizing Henry’s instructions to his French ambassadors confirms his attitude since it indicates that he ordered them to say, “on this alliance by marriage with his sister Mary, the King means, by his entire friendship, to make their alliance stronger in the sight of enemies who might percase malign against them for it. [They] shall also say that he now sends his sister furnished with all things appertaining to so great a princess.”86 Henry’s directives specifically link Mary’s outfitting to the appearance of a strong Anglo-French alliance.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 62

2/18/2011 6:22:04 PM

Becoming the Queen

63

Mary stood at the heart of this display, every detail of her appearance and actions calculated to proclaim her worthiness to be queen of France. Hall boasts proudly in his Chronicle that “Great was the riches in plate, juels, money, apparel, and hangynges that this lady brought into France” (570). Records differ as to precisely how many gowns Mary brought with her; one account includes fifteen gowns in the French style, six in the Milanese (in honor of Louis’s claim to that duchy), and seven in the English style, while another lists eighteen gowns done in the English fashion and five in the Milanese.87 By preparing gowns in the fashions of both native and future realms, Mary could tailor her appearance as needed to project subtle political messages about her heritage or loyalty to either kingdom. And regardless of the number and style, the results were sumptuous; the fabrics included cloth of gold, velvet, and satin in rich colors—crimson, yellow, green, purple, and black—and many of the gowns were lined with fur or elaborately embroidered or bordered with cloth of gold or silver.88 One set of bills totaled more than 810 pounds, mostly to embroiderers, goldsmiths, and silkwomen.89 Her jewels were equally lavish; bracelets, girdles, rings, and necklaces made of diamonds, rubies, pearls, and gold completed her trousseau. Her household goods followed suit; her plate was of gold and silver-gilt, much of it decorated with gems.90 The tapestries Henry gave her, depicting “7 pyssus of the storry of erqullus,” (“seven pieces of the story of Hercules”) would serve practically as decoration and sign of wealth and symbolically as allegory of strength and fortitude.91 Believing that all European eyes were on the Tudor siblings, Henry made certain Mary was well equipped to impress her future subjects. His spending had the desired effect; according to a letter written to the Bishop of Asti, the French ambassador in Venice, the French were much impressed, particularly with the beauty and size of Mary’s tapestries, at least one of which also contained the united arms of England and France. Moreover, they were delighted with the loveliness of her person and manners, so much that the writer referred to her as “a paradise” (“uno paradiso”).92 Mary thus established powerful visual rhetoric by uniting wealth with her personal charm, creating an image of a queen that the French could embrace with pride. As with the tapestries, many of Mary’s belongings conveyed considerable wealth and power even as they portrayed the union of England and France in her person. Green notes that she possessed “a variety of imitation flowers, including fleur-de-lis, and roses made of the most costly gems set in gold” (35). Mary also had two seals, “her great silver seal, engraved with the arms of England and France, and her privy seal of gold, bearing a crown with four roses.”93 Even her litter was decorated with fleurs-de-lis and banners bearing the arms of France and both her York and Tudor ancestry. It also proclaimed Mary’s piety by displaying a picture of Christ sitting in a rainbow with the evangelists, together with a valence “wretyne wyth the quenes wordes,” that is, her motto, “la Voullente de Dieu me suffet” (“the will of God is sufficient for me”) in gold.94 Her chapel was richly appointed; in addition to expensive cloth of gold for the altar cloths and hangings, she also brought images of silver-gilt that included St. Edward the Confessor, St. Thomas à Becket, St. George defeating the dragon, St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Margaret of Antioch, and St. Mary Magdalene.95 The first three saints specifically invoke English history, while the latter three—especially St. Margaret fighting her dragon and St. Catherine debating the scholars—serve as reminders of female strength and authority. England’s wealth was on display,

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 63

2/18/2011 6:22:04 PM

64

The French Queen’s Letters

but far more importantly, Mary’s trappings proclaimed her a loyal Catholic, a proud Englishwoman, and a princess of wisdom, spirit, and courage. Louis was equally aware of the importance of such symbolism and therefore sent Mary gifts that both illustrated the extent of France’s resources and announced his esteem for her (and by extension, the alliance). No detail was too small; on one occasion he sent her accessories for her headgear in French fashion, then wrote Wolsey that he wanted Henry’s permission to dispatch a gentlewoman to dress Mary’s head on occasion, presumably to show her how to wear them.96 That he bothered to ask Henry’s leave suggests Louis’s courtesy, his awareness of the efforts being put into Mary’s toilet, and his desire to avoid offense. For two kings to concern themselves over Mary’s headdress also indicates that although such details might seem trivial to us today, in early modern Europe a queen’s appearance was a matter of state. In addition to the gentlewoman hair dresser, Louis also arranged for Jean de Saints, the Seigneur de Marigny, and the artist Jean de Perréal to travel to England to advise Mary on making up her gowns in the French fashion.97 While there, Perréal, who brought Mary a portrait of Louis he had done, would also paint Mary as St. Mary Magdalene holding a maudlin cup and wearing elaborate jewels, some of them probably wedding gifts.98 Louis was particularly generous in lavishing jewels on Mary; the most spectacular piece he sent to her was the Mirror of Naples, which the Venetian merchant Lorenzo Pasqualigo describes as “a jewelled diamond as large and as broad as a full sized finger with a pear-shaped pearl beneath it, the size of a pigeon’s egg,” which Henry had valued at 60,000 crowns.99 By sending such extravagant presents to his bride in England, Louis deliberately flaunted his own wealth while becoming known for his generosity, enhancing his reputation as a chivalric king. The flurry of preparations complete on both sides of the Channel, Mary and her extensive retinue left for Dover on September 19, 1514, accompanied by Henry, Catherine, and what amounted to a parade of members of the court. Pasqualigo estimated that in addition to four of the principal lords of England, there went over 600 gentlemen plus their wives and retainers, all outfitted sumptuously. Over one thousand horses and one hundred carriages for the ladies were required to convey them all.100 Almost forty noblemen and women were chosen to go with Mary to witness the marriage, including Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, his wife Elizabeth, his son Henry, the Earl of Surrey, and his sister Anne, the Countess of Oxford, as well as Thomas Grey, the Marquis of Dorset, and his wife Margaret, and Thomas Ruthal, the Bishop of Durham.101 Another twenty-six attendants would remain in France.102 All in all, it was an impressive entourage. Henry initially intended to accompany Mary ten miles out to sea in the Henry Grace à Dieu, but found “the wynde was troublous and the wether foule.”103 The conditions canceled Henry’s plans, then delayed the departure several days. Finally, at four o’ clock in the morning on October 2, Mary set sail for France. She bade a pregnant Catherine farewell in the castle at Dover, then Henry escorted her to the waterside, where, according to Hall, “he kissed her and betoke her to God and the fortune of the see, and to the gouvernaunce of the French king her husband.”104 For her part, Mary took advantage of her last face-to-face meeting to remind Henry of his promises regarding her future, that he “wolde never provoke or move me but as myn ounn hert and mynde shulde be best pleased.”105 It was a final reminder that no one knew how long the marriage with Louis would last, but that Mary intended to hold Henry to his word.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 64

2/18/2011 6:22:05 PM

Becoming the Queen

65

A rough crossing separated Mary’s ship from the others.106 Hall notes that she was in great danger on entering the harbor, “so the master ran the ship hard on shore, but the botes were redy and receyved this noble lady, and at the landing, Sir Christopher Garnyshe stode in the water and toke her in his armes, and so caryed her to land” (570). All the passengers on Mary’s vessel made it ashore safely. Other ships were less fortunate; the Great Elizabeth was shipwrecked off the coast of Calais.107 It was an inauspicious start; indeed, Polydore Vergil reports that many Frenchmen later deemed the storm an omen of Louis’s death.108

A Nymph from Heaven Before leaving London, Mary met with merchants from several nations, including Lorenzo Pasqualigo, who reported the event to his brothers back in Venice. Dressed in her finery and wearing the Mirror of Naples, Mary apparently dazzled him so much he wrote that her grace and beauty made her seem a “nymph from heaven” (“ninfa di cielo”). After reporting the details of the plans for her journey to Abbeville, he mentioned that with her farewell, she “made them all many offers, speaking a few words in French, and delighting everybody.”109 He then noted that everyone in the court was speaking French as well as English these days. Although Richardson claims that the comment indicates that Pasqualigo was unimpressed with Mary’s efforts, Perry argues instead that the bilingual display probably stemmed from the universal desire to be eligible for Mary’s entourage.110 If that is the case, it indicates a growing Francophilia amongst the English nobles. But even more important than Mary’s use of French is Pasqualigo’s comment that Mary made the merchants several offers. What those were went unrecorded, but nonetheless the whole audience indicates Mary’s awareness of her own growing authority, that she possessed economic and political influence worth courting. Pasqualigo’s letter extolling Mary as a heavenly creature also presages what would become a recurrent theme in the spectacular rhetoric welcoming her to France: Mary as peacemaker akin to the Virgin Mother. Each town welcomed Mary formally, sometimes with pageants, processions, and song.111 Manuscripts and printed texts preserve the details of four such events in the towns of Boulogne, Montreuil-sur-mer, Abbeville, and Paris, where she would be crowned queen. Examining these accounts reveals certain common themes, from Mary’s beauty and grace to floral metaphors centered on the union of the French fleur-de-lis and the English rose. None of their authors could resist punning on her name by connecting Mary the new queen of France who brought peace with England with the Virgin Mary, the queen of heaven who gave birth to the Prince of Peace. The rhetoric of these pageants outlines a strong role for Mary in both creating and maintaining the new alliance between England and France. As such, the political messages are manifold in every line of verse as each new town brought new reminders of the weighty responsibility she bore, as well as the attendant authority she assumed. Although the ephemeral nature of these spectacles centered on visual and oral display makes it easy to overlook their significance, nonetheless their audience—which includes both those present and those who received news through letters or printed accounts—would have understood the purpose of such extravagant display. Indeed, that so many details were spread by ambassadors from different realms or by printers eager to capitalize on popular interest in the new queen indicates the enormity of each spectacle’s importance in laying

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 65

2/18/2011 6:22:05 PM

66

The French Queen’s Letters

a foundation for Mary’s authority and shaping international perceptions of the Anglo-French alliance. As she entered each town, Mary acted simultaneously as both spectator and star of the show, following the examples of her father and brother in deploying spectacle to create authority. As Kevin Sharpe notes, Henry VII’s progress to York required monarch and citizens to perform for one another, Henry displaying his majesty to court his new subjects’ loyalty, the Yorkers staging their submission to his rule.112 Similarly, Henry’s daughter needed to win the affection of her new people by proving herself a worthy candidate for the throne. Mary was therefore conscious that as she rode through a town, her reactions were noted, her behavior discussed. Whether receiving the gift of a silver swan or applauding the conceits of declaimed verses, she was participating in a rhetorical display by inhabiting the chivalric roles outlined for her, claiming the powers delineated for a queen by the welcoming pageantry. From the moment of her entry into France, Mary was the focal point of all eyes, and despite the foul weather, the French were determined to prove themselves proud to receive her. While Hall remarks only that Mary and all her retinue were welcomed in Boulogne by a “Cardynall with many estates” and Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendôme, following which she rested before departing for Abbeville, a chronicle penned by Jacques Leest, abbé de Saint-Vulmer of Boulogne, fills in some of Hall’s gaps.113 Leest notes that Mary, who arrived at ten in the morning, had to borrow mounts from the town, including his abbey’s own steed, because her ships had been scattered.114 Travel glitches could not be allowed to interfere with the new queen’s dignity. The problem solved, a procession of monks from the church of Notre Dame and Leest’s abbey greeted her, holding up relics for Mary to kiss. They led her to a bridge at the city’s entry, above which was hoisted a ship painted with fleurs-de-lis and roses. When Mary approached, the ship descended before her by the means of some machinery, and a young girl who represented the Virgin Mother and two young children dressed as angels greeted her. The Virgin, quoting the Song of Solomon in Latin, inquired, “Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?” (Songs 3:6). Then she asked the identity of the “beautiful and triumphant maid / full of honor, beauty, and sense,” before them.115 The first angel responded that This is the flowering rose of beauty, The sovereign and illustrious princess, Your goddaughter named Mary, By whom war and discord have taken cease As of peace you were the goddess, Daughter and spouse of the celestial king, Likewise this flower of nobility Is the root of peace and of joy And the dear spouse of the most Christian king. (C’est de biaulté la rozette flourie, La souveraine et illustre princesse, Votre fillœulle apellée Marie, Par quy la guerre et discord a prins cesse. Comme de paix vous fustes la deesse, Fille et espeuse au roy celestien;

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 66

2/18/2011 6:22:05 PM

Becoming the Queen

67

Pareillement, ceste fleur de noblesse Est fondement de paix et de leesse Et chierre espeuse au roi très chrestien).116

The second angel chimed in to agree with the first, thanking God that Mary has come and noting that “here we see the rose and the lily all of one accord in this place.”117 Then the Virgin stepped forward once more to bless the princess and offer her a gift from the town, a silver swan containing a heart made of gold and worth sixty ecus d’or (Leest, 73). By accepting the gift, Mary became an actor on stage, blurring the lines between reality and rhetorical fiction in a manner that enabled her to inhabit the role of wise and bounteous peacemaker. The prior who composed the verse, Leurens Framery, took pains to compliment both Mary’s beauty and her good judgment. In fact, in the Song of Solomon, the lines the Virgin quoted belong to the female speaker and refer to the coming of Solomon himself, so that in answering this call, it was Mary whose wisdom was foregrounded in the pageant. Moreover, through the pun on “princesse” and “prins cesse,” Framery emphasized that it was a princess who ended the war. Like the Virgin—her godmother, he claimed—she was a woman responsible for bringing peace to the world. Charles Giry-Deloison points out that this coincidence of names was stressed to underscore that Mary’s presence was a “gift of God . . . [that] carried a considerable significance as Louis XII had dedicated his kingdom to the Virgin Mary.”118 While the parallel structure of the verse also elevates Louis as God’s representative on earth, the emphasis is on Mary as the source of joy and peace in the kingdom. The welcome at Montreuil-sur-mer three days later on October 5 highlighted similar themes of peace, this time with song and a series of five different pageants.119 After processing toward the city with French nobles, Mary greeted the religious and secular leaders of the town, then listened to an oration by the lawyer Guillaume de l’Espinoy “on the peace that she effected,” a speech that the chronicler notes Mary heard with pleasure.120 In fact, Mary must have heard many things with pleasure that day. Her approach to the city was marked with joyful noise; cheering throngs of people lining the streets, rounds of artillery fire and music of clairons (a kind of trumpet), all combined to create a cacophony of jubilant sound . The artillery was so loud that it could be heard in the neighboring town of Hesdin, according to the chronicler, who also noted that one of the artillery pieces, La Rose, had been at the Battle of Ravenna (476). Citing this French victory over the Pope and the rest of the Holy League in Italy served as a source of pride but also reminded readers of the recent strife in Europe, strife that was finally ended by Mary’s marriage to Louis. The music and cheering that greeted her appearance underscored Mary’s presence as an essential part of the spectacle. Each of the five pageants Mary witnessed in her procession throughout the city featured the theme of peace restored by the Tudor princess. After describing the action of each scene, the chronicler explicated the allegory. The first pageant, depicting the classical myth of Perseus slaying the sea monster, explicitly identified the monster as a symbol of “war which is a monster terrible and hurtful that has been sent into exile by the noble lady and the lily united with the rose.”121 In this gender reversal, Mary is constructed as Perseus banishing the monster, her marriage enabling her to occupy a position of heroic agency. In the second pageant, Apollo presented Diana with a laurel crown on which was written “this

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 67

2/18/2011 6:22:05 PM

68

The French Queen’s Letters

triumphant crown / I offer to you, powerful princess,” which the chronicler glossed as a metaphor for Louis giving Mary a “crown of triumph” meant for the best of all queens.122 This rhetoric casts Mary as the virgin huntress joining the ranks of those heroes, athletes, and poets who owe their fealty to Apollo. Both of these portrayals construe Mary as a powerful warrior figure who nonetheless brings peace in her wake. The latter three spectacles shifted to biblical themes. Here, although all retained the central argument celebrating Mary as peacemaker, they also depicted a range of feminine roles and the complex ways by which women could garner authority. For instance, the third pageant employed the Marian connection by portraying the story of the marriage of the Virgin Mary and the Annunciation, which, according to the chronicler, symbolized “the marriage of Louis and Mary, by whom the poor people were delivered from the subjugation of war, mother of all evils.”123 This scene foregrounds the paradox that by taking a passive role, surrendering to God’s will, both Marys gain enormous influence and by their actions, deliver mankind from evil. In the fourth pageant, that of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, the emphasis shifted to Louis and marital rhetoric. Where the Boulogne spectacle placed Mary in the Solomon role, the Montreuil rhetoric praised the king, noting that it was his good policy that created friendship by wedding the daughter of his enemy (477). Here the spectacle underscores the woman’s role in the marital alliance: to become the visible symbol of peace between two nations. The final pageant enacted the tale of Esther, who saved her people by influencing her husband, a role that would become one of Mary’s primary duties. These three scenes represent the progression of Mary’s experience, from virgin consenting to the marriage, to wife marrying to create an alliance, to mediator interceding for her people. All three pageants depict the complexity of women’s authority; no woman wields outright power, but each has extraordinary influence on worldly affairs through her position. Combining these images with the warrior role suggested in the first spectacles defines queenly authority as a balance of agency and submission. The pageantry also employed chivalric traditions to underscore the importance of the political alliance. One of the songs celebrates the realm of France as a garden of lilies wherein had been planted a rose, “the best and prettiest of all flowers.”124 Into this metaphor the composer interjects a combination of chivalry and politics by quoting the motto of the Order of the Garter at the end of each stanza: “Honny soit Il Qui mal y pence” (“evil be to him who thinks evil of it”) (474). The words are a warning to anyone who would criticize this union of the Lily and the Rose. Moreover, by incorporating the motto of the Garter, the noblest of the English knightly orders, the writer condemns any detractors as unchivalrous louts. He builds on that foundation by adding that Charlemagne and Arthur, the greatest kings of France and England, would have joy in this alliance of their heirs (lns. 17–22). Finally, the poet adjures all princes to keep the Rose among the lilies of France always (lns. 33–6). This garden metaphor suggests that if the Tudor-Valois union remains strong, England and France might relive the golden age of chivalry. Mary embraced this rhetoric; by graciously accepting her subjects’ tribute, she fostered even more good will. The Montreuil manuscript specifically records that Mary welcomed the townspeople’s efforts with gratitude. In particular, the chronicler observed that Mary received nicely a tableau of Saint Anne holding the Virgin Mary and of St. Margaret that the mayor had arranged the morning

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 68

2/18/2011 6:22:06 PM

Becoming the Queen

69

of October 6. She spent the remainder of the day amiably visiting the Duchess of Longueville and other ladies.125 When she left the next day, the chronicler noted that “everyone had great joy to see the said lady who was very gracious to all manner of people.”126 Throughout the narrative, the writer comments favorably on Mary’s gentle manner and courtesy to all; clearly she made a strong impression on her new people. It was a politic move; the more amity she could inspire on this journey, the stronger would be the union of her home and adoptive countries. The Montreuil chronicler closed the account with a prayer for Louis, Mary, and all lords and ladies of each party and the hope that the alliance would be perpetual (479). By enacting the customs of chivalry and courtesy, Mary was doing all she could to fulfill the prayer. On October 8, Mary reached Abbeville, where Louis and the rest of the court were waiting; here too there were magnificent spectacles of welcome, but first Mary and Louis engaged in a little theatre of their own.127 Stopping at a village outside town, Mary delayed while the dauphin rode into Abbeville to inform Louis of her approach. Louis bade him detain her shortly outside town, while the king mounted his horse, carrying a hawk so that he might pretend to encounter Mary “accidentally” while hunting.128 The royal couple even coordinated clothing, both wearing crimson velvet and cloth of gold, Mary adding a little crimson silk hat cocked jauntily over her left eye which she doffed on meeting Louis.129 When Louis arrived, Mary attempted to dismount and curtsey to him, but he did not allow that, instead embracing and kissing her on horseback.130 Other accounts mention that each kissed their hands to the other, and then Louis “kissed her as kindly as if he had been five and twenty.”131 After exchanging a few words no chronicler could hear, Louis spurred his horse and thoughtfully returned to Abbeville by a different route along the walls so as not to upstage her entry with his presence.132 The care Mary took with her entrance into town indicates her awareness of her role within the pageantry. Bearing a scepter of white wood, she rode a richly caparisoned horse under a white canopy with Louis’s device of porcupines and her emblem of roses embroidered on it. It was a magnificent procession: over four hundred archers, musketeers, and gentlemen led the way, followed by clergy carrying relics, then over eighty sumptuously dressed English lords, papal and Venetian ambassadors, then the Scotch guard surrounding their new monarch, and after Mary, her own ladies from England.133 Fleuranges reported that over two thousand Englishmen on horseback accompanied her.134 Although Mary was riding, her litter followed nearby, extravagantly decorated with cloth of gold embroidered with lilies, the litter itself bearing roses and fleurs-de-lis. In addition, she brought three carriages from England, each lavishly appointed with velvet and cloth of gold. The writer describing the scene apologized for his hyperbole: “Your right reverend Lordship must not be surprised at my representing well nigh everything in the superlative degree, for the reality exceeds my description, to the great glory of this Queen.”135 Henry’s generous outfitting enabled Mary to make a strong impression on all those who witnessed her entry. At the church of Notre Dame de la Chapelle, Mary was seated in her litter, the better to see and to be seen by all.136 Once more she was met with singing and the ringing of bells, a display of artillery, and pageantry. The first gate she entered was decorated with two angels holding shields bearing the arms of France and England, as well as with a line from a poem by the king’s physician telling her that the lilies of France were hers to gather.137 Actors from the Fosse-aux-Ballades

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 69

2/18/2011 6:22:06 PM

70

The French Queen’s Letters

presented several pageants for her entertainment.138 In one spectacle, the citizens of Abbeville had built a serpent with seven heads that spouted white wine as the queen rode by, while in another place they constructed a lily surrounded by roses with jets of white and red wine streaming out. They also staged a garden in which two children dressed as soldiers carried banners with white fleurs-de-lis, while driving two porcupines before a young girl who represented Mary, and in yet another location, showed Eve leaving Paradise by a golden door. They built an entire ship for one pageant, fully rigged with masts and oars.139 These spectacles betokened considerable effort and civic pride as the French attempted to impress their former foes. Their labors were well received; as one correspondent remarked, Mary delighted in listening to music, singing, and dancing.140 The streets of Abbeville provided ample entertainment as her new subjects greeted their queen, celebrating the end of war, and by extension, honoring her presence among them and confirming her authority over them.141 The next morning, October 9, the focus of the spectacle shifted to the wedding, for which there was even greater pomp and ceremony than the day before.142 Here Mary and Louis assumed center stage, with all parties costumed to impress. At seven-thirty in the morning, the English, dressed in elaborate furs, silks, velvets, and jewels, escorted Mary to the king’s lodgings. One writer told the Bishop of Asti that the English lords’ gold chains were so massive, some of them looped as many as six times around the neck, that he thought it must be a burden to carry them, “but never was such magnificence beheld.”143 Wearing her hair loose but covered by a hat decorated with precious stones and sporting expensive jewelry, Mary dressed in a gown of gold brocade in the English fashion, all to dazzle the watching lords.144 Nor were the English alone in showing off; Galeazzo di Sanseverino supposedly spent 2,000 crowns on cloth of gold that he had ordered from Italy by special courier.145 When they reached the king’s hall, Mary curtseyed deeply, while Louis doffed his hat and kissed her, then gifted her with a new necklace. She was seated next to Louis while one of the English nobles spoke a few words. The Dukes of Angoulême, Alençon, and Vendôme, with the Count of Guise, held an expensive canopy over their heads while Cardinal René de Prie consecrated the match. During the mass, appropriately enough, after Louis kissed the pax, he also kissed the bride whose presence had cemented the political peace. Each act was calculated to demonstrate their regard for one another, enhancing the strength of the marital alliance. The performance continued throughout the day. After the ceremony, Mary and Louis returned to their own chambers to eat and rest. At one in the afternoon, they reassembled with all the nobles of both realms; this time Mary wore a gown in the French style, which the chronicler proudly notes looked much better than the English fashion.146 In this manner, Mary deliberately signaled her new allegiance to France. They danced and enjoyed various entertainments until evening, when Claude drew her away to sleep with Louis.147 The next morning, Louis joyously declared that “thrice last night did he cross the river and would have done more had he so desired.”148 Fleuranges records that Louis “claimed that he had done marvels,” and laments that the king had been so afflicted by gout, especially because he was not old.149 What seems like prurient gossip underscores the extent to which such details were a matter for public consumption long before the modern media’s obsession with celebrity sex. For the early modern courtier, a marriage’s consummation could have weighty consequences, as Catherine of Aragon later discovered to her detriment. It was in both Louis and Mary’s interest

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 70

2/18/2011 6:22:06 PM

Becoming the Queen

71

to confirm the health of their marriage, and by extension, the health of the alliance between England and France. Revealing such intimate details was part of the show the couple were required to give. The spectacles surrounding Mary’s arrival fulfilled the hopes of both countries. For the French, the elaborate preparations served as a vehicle for national pride and a means to display their good taste, the extent of their resources, and the magnificence of their court. The English lords and ladies saw similar opportunity and took great pains with the splendor of their appearance. The pleasure everyone seemed to take in these events may have denoted a growing optimism for the alliance on both parts. The Abbeville chronicler even notes a musical metaphor for peace, remarking that the trumpets, clairons, and other instruments were played by both French and English musicians, creating something “very good to hear.”150 The other tangible link between the two nations was Mary herself. Whether riding through the streets of Abbeville or dancing at a ball, Mary must have been conscious of her dual roles of audience and actor. All of the chroniclers emphasize her appearance and every letter written by ambassadors to foreign courts includes a statement about her beauty. One of them noted her pallor, although he attributed it to the fright she sustained after the treacherous crossing from England.151 Since that letter was written eight days after her arrival, it is more likely that at times she felt the strain of her new position. Nonetheless, Mary performed the role of loving wife effectively. A recurrence of Louis’s illness gave Mary ample opportunity to display her affectionate care of her new husband. Worcester and West reported to Henry on October 13 that every day Louis planned to leave Abbeville, but his gout prevented him. Moreover, they related, “The Quene is continually with hym, of whom he maketh asmuch, as she reporteth to us herself, as it is possible for any man to make of a Lady.”152 The couple lingered in Abbeville and then traveled to Beauvais, where Charles Brandon, who had been sent to France as one of Henry’s new ambassadors, caught up with them on October 26. Writing Henry an account of the meeting, Brandon notes that he found Louis in bed and Mary by his side. Louis welcomed him heartily, asking enthusiastically about Henry and explaining he would do anything for Henry’s sake, “for I know well the nobleness, and trust so much in your master, that I reckon that I have of him the greatest jewel that ever one prince had of another.”153 Brandon then praises Mary: there was never queen nor lady that ordered herself more honorably nor wiser, the which I assure your grace rejoiced me not a little, your grace knows why, for I think that there was never queen in France that hath demeaned herself more honorably, nor wiselier, and so says all the noblemen in France that have seen her demeanor, the which letted not to speak it, and as for the king [there was] never man that set his mind more upon [woman] than he does on her, because she demeans herself so winning unto him.154

Both Louis’s and Brandon’s descriptions of Mary highlight her role in creating a firm alliance between Henry and Louis. Brandon particularly emphasizes Mary’s proactive role in winning Louis’s affection, something he notes should please Henry greatly. Nor were the English the only ones to comment favorably on Mary’s demeanor. On October 29, Jean du Treul reported to the Mayor and Sheriffs of Dijon that he had seen Mary and Louis at Beauvais and that “she was the most beautiful lady

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 71

2/18/2011 6:22:07 PM

72

The French Queen’s Letters

nature ever created and that she loves the King well.”155 But she had made an even stronger impression on one of the chroniclers at Abbeville: “the said lady is very beautiful, honest, and joyous, and takes pleasure in all entertainments. She loves the hunt and shoots an arrow in the English fashion so well that it is a marvel . . . I think that this will be a lady of boldness, because she is not afraid of anything, and here rules wisely her people as one could wish to have.”156 Mary could hardly have wished for a better reaction. Such affirmation signals Mary’s success in meeting her new subjects’ expectations and performing the obligations of royalty.

Attendant Difficulties On October 3, 1514, just after Mary’s arrival in France, Henry’s ambassador Charles Somerset, the Earl of Worcester, wrote to Wolsey about a conversation he had had with Louis, who made it clear that Jane Popincourt was not to be allowed to come to France with Mary. Popincourt, Mary’s longtime companion, had begun having an affair with the Duke of Longueville while he awaited ransom in England. When Worcester let the gossip slip, Louis was adamant that no such woman would be permitted near his wife. Although Longueville had told Louis that Mary “lovid and trustid hur [Popincourt] above all the gentil women that she had abought hur,” the king declared that if he “made hur to be brent he shall do but well, and a good dede.”157 What sounds particularly bizarre to a modern audience is that Worcester’s very next sentence is “I assure you he [Louis] hathe a mervelous mynde to content and plees the Quene.” Louis then showed Worcester “the godeliest and the richest sight of Jowelles that ever I sawe,” including large diamonds, rubies, pearls, and other precious stones (236–7). Laughing, Louis explained that she would have them “at dyverse tymes, for he wold have many and at diverse tymes kysses and thankes for them.” Worcester did not perceive (or at least acknowledge) a contradiction in these ideas, that Louis could reject his wife’s friend, but be willing to do anything in the world to please her. Instead he accepted a mercenary evaluation of Mary’s character and took Louis’s commodification of his bride for affection. By early modern standards, Louis’s extravagant plans for showering Mary with jewels made sense; as signs of her wealth and authority, those gems would enhance her standing at court, and by extension, Louis’s reputation for generosity. But what should perhaps have warned even a sixteenth-century gentleman was Louis’s lack of concern for providing Mary with companionship or guidance in a foreign court. Thus the stage was set for a minor crisis when Louis dismissed most of Mary’s retinue the day after the wedding. Although most of the lords and ladies who had accompanied Mary to France only intended to remain for the wedding, she had a suite of attendants permanently assigned to her, including Worcester; John Bourchier, Lord Berners, her chamberlain; Doctor James Denton, her almoner; Lady Jane Guildford; John Palsgrave, her secretary; several noblemen and women, including young Anne Boleyn; and a number of minor retainers, such as ushers, grooms, pages, and so forth, totaling about one hundred people.158 Louis himself had agreed to the names by signing a list of Mary’s principal retainers before her arrival.159 Louis’s reasons for the dismissal are not entirely clear. It seems unlikely his action was motivated by economy. The French king regularly bestowed jewelry worth staggering amounts on his bride, and otherwise plotted gifts to show off her beauty, so stripping her of any of the consequence lent by the size of her

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 72

2/18/2011 6:22:07 PM

Becoming the Queen

73

retinue would be strangely counterproductive. He had also defrayed the costs of each of the visiting English lords while they were at Abbeville.160 Both Walter Richardson and David Loades suggest that Louis was affronted by the numbers and determined to see that his wife was not entirely surrounded by Englishmen.161 Yet he made no objections prior to the wedding and approved the list with his signature. Moreover, while the list of her attendants might seem excessive to modern eyes, it is comparable to the numbers Catherine of Aragon brought with her to England.162 Henry VII did ask Ferdinand and Isabella not to send more people than were approved; he would prefer to avoid the route taken by the Archduke, to approve everyone and then send them all home.163 Henry’s acid comment suggests that Louis’s action was not unprecedented and that clearly tension existed between wanting to ensure a foreign queen had friends with whom she was comfortable and wanting to make sure she embraced the new court. Mary immediately protested Louis’s decree. Retha Warnicke speculates that the new French queen was outraged over “the slight to her honor caused by her husband’s interference in the running of her household.”164 It is a plausible motive, especially given all the attention to building her authority through spectacle. However, since Mary’s letters of protest to Henry so quickly focused on the particular discharge of Lady Jane Guildford, there were also deeper anxieties at play. A longtime companion of Mary’s grandmother Margaret Beaufort, Guildford had known Mary from the princess’s birth and was now appointed to be her senior lady-in-waiting. Clearly Mary was relying on her sage advice; she complains to Henry on October 12 that all of her attendants have been discharged save only “such as never had experiens nor knowlech how to advertyse or gyfe me counsell yn any tyme of nede which is to be fered more schortly then your grace thought at the tyme of my departynge as my mother guldeford cann more playnly schew your grace then I cann wryt.”165 Mary asks him to persuade Louis to change his mind, “for ells yfe any chauns happe other then weale I shall not knowe wher nor of whom to aske any good counsell to your pleasure nor yet to myn own proffitt.”166 Richardson opines that Mary was alarmed at the prospect of being alone in France after Louis’s death, when she would have to deal with Francis and Louise.167 But while the specter of Louis’s ill-health might well have motivated her, Mary had immediate need for counsel; in addition to the personal concerns of a young bride, she had become queen of a foreign court and needed guidance in the particular customs and political maneuvers of the French nobility. She writes Wolsey that “I have not zet seene yn fraunce eny lady or Jentillwomann so necessary for me as sche [Guildford] ys nor zet so mete to do the kynge my brother service as sche ys.”168 Mary trusted that an Englishwoman would have Henry’s and her interests at heart; she could not say the same for the members of Louis’s court. For despite the extravagant welcomes to France, Mary nonetheless faced numerous potential difficulties, some doubtless related to those courtiers hostile to the English, but others stemming from the dauphin’s faction. Louise of Savoy, Francis’s mother, was a formidable figure who did not welcome potential interference with her son’s claim to the throne. On September 22, she noted sourly in her diary that Louis, “exceedingly old and weak” (“fort antique et débile”) had left Paris to meet “his young wife” (“sa jeune femme”) and on October 9, observed that the “amorous wedding” between Louis and Mary took place at ten in the morning and then that evening, they went to bed together.169 In this fashion, Louise records her anxiety over the possible heir even as she mocks the aged king with his young bride. According to Fleuranges, although Francis initially had

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 73

2/18/2011 6:22:08 PM

74

The French Queen’s Letters

the same fears, someone reassured him that the king and queen could not have a child.170 Nonetheless, suspicion of the young queen persisted, leading them to order Claude, Francis’s wife, not to budge outside Mary’s chamber throughout the day and Madame D’Aumont, a lady in waiting, to sleep there as well.171 Mary’s youth would eventually invite other mockery. Fleuranges records that the clerks of the basoche, the law courts, quipped that Henry had given Louis a hackney “that would carry him swiftly and more gently to hell or to heaven.”172 Certainly their wit ridiculed Louis’s age, but Giry-Deloison points out their language insulted Mary too, since the term hackney could also signify a prostitute.173 Although Fleuranges fails to indicate a date for their biting comments, taken together with Louise and Francis’s suspicion, such attention and gossip must have placed considerable strain on Mary, making a reliable adviser all the more critical. In addition to these difficulties, Mary needed to maintain strong ties to England. She clearly understood that much of her influence rested on her relationship with Henry and as time passed, in order to ensure they remained close, she would need to show him she was a valuable resource in France. The French, however, had reasons to weaken those bonds. Choosing a foreign queen might enable a king to avoid domestic rivalries, but should her loyalties to home persist, she might cause problems, such as sending valuable intelligence in her letters to her family or influencing her husband to a course of action favorable only to her birth country. In addition, as John Carmi Parsons notes, she might even favor her family with excessive gifts that could deplete her husband’s monetary resources.174 Such worries explain the practice of sending brides as children to their husband’s courts to loosen their attachments to home. Examining several medieval queens such as Eleanor of Castile, Parsons concludes that “access to power was easier for queens who commanded strong cross- cultural perspectives” (4). The same issues persisted into the sixteenth century. Catherine of Aragon’s example would have shown Mary how difficult it could be to retain loyalties to her native land while supporting her husband’s policies. The existence of an English advisor would have signaled Mary’s allegiance to Henry while helping her navigate the French court and balance English politics. Thus Mary’s letters to Henry and Wolsey over Guildford’s dismissal are not merely petulant complaints, but rather indicate the young queen’s awareness of the precariousness of her position. Mary’s language also reveals her awareness of the perils of letters themselves. Literature had taught her not only epistolary tropes but also reminded her of the dangers of letter writing. Late medieval texts frequently demonstrate that letters are a vulnerable means of communication; Guinevere and Lancelot are furious with Mark for putting his accusations against them into written form, lest someone else read the letter and discover their affair. The jealous mother-in-law in Chaucer’s The Man of Law’s Tale is able to plot successfully against Custance precisely because she is able to intercept letters to and from the king. Because a letter lacks the ephemeral quality of speech, it is a more dangerous form of communication, potentially damaging both sender and recipient should the letter be used as evidence of wrongdoing or secrets. Providing constant reminders about potential abuse, fictional letters remind the prudent real-life letter writer to guard her written words carefully. In The Man of Law’s Tale, a text Mary almost certainly knew, given the popularity of Chaucer’s works at court, the letter is dangerous precisely because it carries the king’s authority but is vulnerable to interference in a way that the

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 74

2/18/2011 6:22:08 PM

Becoming the Queen

75

king’s person is not. Queen Custance gives birth in her husband’s absence, but his jealous mother Donegild intercepts the good news, replacing it with a forgery telling Alla his wife gave birth to a monster. Although grieved, Alla takes the letter’s validity for granted because it is under seal. His mother then substitutes his merciful response with an order to exile Custance and the child. This letter too is under seal, and so the constable obeys his king’s “wishes.” When a furious Alla discovers his wife’s fate, the constable is protected from punishment because he obeyed his master’s seal. By contrast, the messenger is tortured to discover how the forgeries occurred, while Alla slays his mother with his own sword, underscoring the depth of her crime in forging the king’s authority. Not only does this episode emphasize the letter’s vulnerability, it also highlights the crucial role of the messenger. Donegild encourages the messenger to overindulge in drink and “whil he sleep as a swyn,” she creeps in and steals the letters out of his box.175 Other authors besides Chaucer express frustration with irresponsible messengers; in the Ship of Fools, published in England in 1509 by Wynkyn de Worde and supposedly commissioned by Mary’s grandmother Margaret Beaufort, Sebastian Brant criticizes foolish messengers who tarry with their messages, deliver verbal messages to people other than the addressee, break open and read letters or even return without an answer.176 Brant acknowledges the value of a diligent messenger, “Messengers prudent & wyse one can not prayse you to moche / whan ye employe yourselfe to do your massage truely” (fol. S2r). Where Brant scolds messengers for doing more than their office, in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, Tristram is grateful for his messenger’s initiative. She not only carries written letters and verbal news of Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere, but also shows Isoud and Tristram Mark’s letters to Arthur threatening the young knight. When even the heroes of the tale lack compunction about intercepting letters, the potential dangers of a written message are readily apparent, as is the need for a reliable messenger capable of delivering verbal tidings as well. This dynamic—the issue of what can be written and what must be left to speech—plays out in Mary’s letters. Mary’s letters reflect the vulnerability of the genre when she defers details while recounting a story, indicating the rest of her message will either be communicated orally or written by others. Such deferral is in part a gesture of modesty. In her letters over the Guildford affair, Mary’s circumspection is crucial; therefore she tells Wolsey only “I am sure the nobill menn & Jentillmenn cann schew you more thenn becometh me to wryte yn this matter.”177 But her desire for caution probably motivated Mary more. If Louis were to read a lengthy series of complaints or perhaps know some of her plans, it might well cause her difficulty. As a result, she prudently writes to Henry and Wolsey only of her need for good counsel but adds, “as my mother guldeford cann more playnly schew your grace then I cann wryt.”178 To both of these letters penned by scribes, Mary appends a postcript in her own hand asking them to listen to Guildford; to Henry she writes, “gyef [give] credens to my mowder Geldeford be your lovynge suster Mary quene of France” (fol. 257r). Using her own hand marks the significance of her message, but even more, her written postscript authorizes Guildford’s oral speech. Literary messengers must often provide authentication for their messages, whether by token or password. In Caxton’s romance Blanchardyn and Eglantine, the provost shows Eglantine a ring to prove that Blanchardyn has come to rescue her.179 Equally, a note within the letter affirming that the courier is trustworthy and that s/he has a verbal message in addition to the letter authorizes the

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 75

2/18/2011 6:22:08 PM

76

The French Queen’s Letters

messenger to speak. In this way, speech supplements the written communication, ensuring that dangerous ideas are not permanently inscribed, while the written document endorses the reliability of the speech. Following this pattern, Mary’s postscript indicates that Guildford’s message was of great importance and that Mary desperately wanted Henry and Wolsey to understand that Guildford’s oral communication came from Mary herself. Writing both to Henry and Wolsey indicated Mary’s awareness of the workings of the English court and especially of Wolsey’s influence. She asks each man to find a way to restore Guildford’s appointment, but it is Wolsey whom Mary asks to take care of Guildford in the event she is not allowed to stay in France. To Henry, Mary complains somewhat disingenuously about the Duke of Norfolk’s failure to defend her wishes: “I merveill moche that my lord of northfolke wold at all tymes so lyghtly graunt every thynge at ther Reqwestes . . . wold god my lord of zorke [Wolsey] had comm with me yn the romme of my lord of northfolke for [the]n amm I sure I schuld have bene left moch more at my hert[is ease] then I am now.”180 Her letter to Wolsey contains stronger condemnation of the duke and expresses her fears that Norfolk has undermined her case: “my lord of northfollke ha[th] nethyr deled best with me nor zet with her [Guildford] at this tyme.” Again she declares her wish that Wolsey had come in the duke’s stead. Mary’s complaint signals that she is aligned with the Wolsey–Suffolk faction opposing Norfolk’s political influence. Moreover, the sentence immediately preceding Mary’s frustration with Norfolk is another request to listen to everything Guildford will say on her behalf. The proximity of these ideas suggests a possible link—that some of Guildford’s message would include Mary’s thoughts on Norfolk’s political machinations. But at the least, Mary’s letter demonstrates that she understood and participated in the contest for advantage at court. When Brandon confronted the situation a few days later, he certainly recognized the political implications, and like Mary, hesitated to commit them fully to letter. On October 20, Brandon wrote Wolsey that he had met with Gerard Dannot at Canterbury, who gave him news that Brandon has ordered him to convey back to Wolsey: “you schall wyell parssyef by the handyllyng of thys mattares wat me lord of norfolk and hes sone mynes [mean] and as I take et thay have byn the chyef causswes of the quyenes servants by [be] pout from hyer becaus thay war of your chawesseng [choosing] and not of thiyeres [theirs].181 Moreover, Brandon warns Wolsey, it is more than jealousy that motivated Norfolk to act; should Brandon and Wolsey disappoint Mary in this matter, “she may blam you and me.” Brandon sees in this action a plot to divide Mary from her political alliances. His fears add dimension to Mary’s repeated assurances that she wishes Wolsey were there with her, underlining her continued trust in the minister. Wolsey must have agreed with Mary and Brandon on the need to act swiftly. On October 23, he composed a letter to Louis brilliantly tailored to appeal to the king. Reminding Louis that he had asked Wolsey to act as one of his own privy councilors, Wolsey presumes to offer the French king advice. Then he flatters Louis by stating that Henry chose Guildford precisely so that she might advise Mary how to better please her new husband. Moreover, since Mary is so young and in a foreign country, he claims that she needs a maternal confidant, without whom she might feel homesick and fall ill, something he knows would grieve Louis. In addition, Wolsey points out the unfairness of rejecting Guildford, who only left a position of retirement at Henry’s particular request on his sister’s behalf, and who is, above all, a wise woman who will serve Louis.182 Wolsey’s rhetoric sounds

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 76

2/18/2011 6:22:09 PM

Becoming the Queen

77

compelling, but was ultimately unsuccessful: Louis was determined not to allow Guildford’s return. Shortly afterward, Worcester wrote that Louis felt that he and Mary were in as “good and perfaite love es ever any two creatures can be, and bothe of age to rewle them selfe, and not to have servantes that shuld loke to rewle him or hur. If his wife nede of counsaill or to be rewlid, he is able to do hit.”183 Moreover, Louis acknowledged, he was sickly and asserted that when he wanted to be merry with his wife he wanted no strangers about them. In the face of such strong objections, there was nothing to be done, and Mary told Worcester that she was content, echoing Louis’s own argument by explaining that she would be able to do as she pleased (247). Throughout this flurry of correspondence, Mary evidently took care to remain attentive to her husband, since all reports of Louis’s delight in her continue. When she understood that she would not be allowed to retain Guildford, she acceded openly to Louis’s wishes, the better to mollify her husband. Yet Mary knew she had need of advice, Louis’s assertions notwithstanding. Therefore, according to Suffolk, sometime between the coronation on November 5 and the tournament that started eight days later, Mary “shewed to me and to my lorde Marques [Dorset] divers thinges the whiche we woll shew you at our comyng Wherby we perceyve that she had nede of somme good ffrendes about the king.”184 After consulting with Worcester and the other ambassadors, they called some of Louis’s principal advisers—Longueville, the Bishop of St. Paul’s, Sir Thomas Bohier, and the treasurer Florimond Robertet—before Mary and told them that she asked theym on hir bihalff and in the name of the king our maister that they wold be good and loving to her and that they wold gyve hir counsaill frome tyme to tyme how she myght best order hirselffe to content the king wherof she was moost desirous and in hir shuld lak no goode wille And bicause she knew well they were the men that the king loved and trusted and knew best his mynde therefore she was utterly determyned to love theym and trust theym and to be ordered by thair counsaill in all causes for she knew well that thoes that the king loved must love hir best and she theymm. (fol. 160r)

This speech impressed Louis’s courtiers, who promised to tell the king “what honorable and lovyng request she had made the whiche they said wold content hym very [well]” (fol. 160r). Furthermore, they thanked her for the good will she had shown them and volunteered to counsel her whenever she felt the need. This piece of staged diplomacy was one of Mary’s early attempts to garner political influence; by reaching out to these particular officers, she appealed to some of the most powerful men at court. Obtaining their counsel (her ostensible request) would presumably be valuable, but far more significant would be the goodwill engendered by her flattery. Most importantly, Mary ensured that Louis would hear of her desire to please him, which presumably he would appreciate and reciprocate, thus enhancing her authority. On the whole, such ploys succeeded. Dorset, writing to Wolsey on November 22, noted that “the queen’s grace continues still her goodness and wisdom and increaseth in the same so that she loseth no ground and duly increaseth in the king’s her husband’s favor and in the favor of his privy council.”185 Mary was high in Louis’s good graces.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 77

2/18/2011 6:22:09 PM

78

The French Queen’s Letters

At the same time, Mary did not neglect those attendants who had been dismissed. According to Hall’s Chronicle, some of them were devastated at the loss of their positions, so much so that “some dyed by the way returning, and some fell mad” (570). Hall’s hyperbole notwithstanding, it must have been a great disappointment, especially for those who relinquished other positions to attend the new queen. On November 2, Mary ordered her treasurer Nicolas de Cerisay to pay an English goldsmith named William Verner 600 French crowns for several items of gold jewelry decorated with precious stones that she had ordered him to give to those of her ladies-in-waiting who had been discharged.186 In addition, Mary’s letter to Wolsey requesting he take care of Jane Guildford bore fruit; on November 21, Guildford was awarded an annuity of twenty pounds, and on June 9, 1515, an annuity of forty pounds.187 Finally, on November 13, Mary wrote to Wolsey on behalf of John Palsgrave, her erstwhile French teacher turned secretary, who was among those dismissed from her service. She asked Wolsey to find a living for Palsgrave that would enable him to continue his studies in France, where she had bidden him to stay, even if he could not serve her directly. Mary purposed to remain his patron in some fashion, telling Wolsey, “I intend my sellff som what to do for hym howe behytt by cause my estat ys not yett made I wott nott howmyche I shall be gladde to helpe hym that he schall not nede to cumm home praying you hertely not to forget hym.”188 Palsgrave did remain some time in France and would count Mary as a patroness throughout his life. Such letters indicate how well Mary understood the importance of rewarding loyalty and the intricacies of the patronage system.

Crowning the Queen According to one of the prayers outlined in the 1365 Coronation Book of the French monarch Charles V, the biblical role models appointed to French queens at their coronations included the Old Testament wives Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel. Designed to evoke the hope of fertility, these figures testify to the primary obligation of queenship and the subordinate role of the queen.189 As Elizabeth McCartney notes, the coronation ceremony emphasized that the queen’s power stemmed from her husband; she had no independent right to rule.190 Even the site of the coronation underscored the difference; kings were crowned at the cathedral at Rheims, while queens were crowned at the abbey at St. Denis (182). Studying the manuscript images, Claire Richter Sherman agrees, noting the smaller size of the queen’s scepter and throne and the lesser status of the queen’s attendants.191 Nevertheless, Sherman points out, the manuscript still confers significant authority on the queen, who must engage in acts of charity on behalf of her people (107). Such observations are borne out by other prayers in the Coronation Book; some invoke the Jewish queen Esther, underlining the importance of the queen’s intercessory role.192 The final prayer asks God to bless the new queen with “authority of command, greatness of judgment, an abundance of wisdom, prudence, and understanding, a guardianship of religion and piety,” qualities that suggest the exercise of considerable, even if subordinate, power.193 Following the path of her predecessors, Mary was crowned in the abbey church at St. Denis, just outside Paris, on Sunday, November 5, between ten and eleven in the morning.194 The only English ambassadors who remained with her by this time were Brandon, Dorset, Worcester, Docwra, and West, who wrote Henry an account of the coronation and of Mary’s entry into Paris the next day.195 They

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 78

2/18/2011 6:22:09 PM

Becoming the Queen

79

noted French courtesy in bringing them to their places in the abbey before the crush of French nobles, ensuring their proximity to Mary. Within that hour, Mary arrived at the church, escorted by Francis, and accompanied by a great number of French lords and ladies, including the Dukes of Longueville, Alençon, Bourbon, and Albany. She knelt before the altar where Cardinal René de Prie anointed her, then gave her the scepter in her right hand and the virga, or rod, of justice, in her left. After that, he placed a ring on her finger, which symbolized, according to Sherman, “the queen’s duty to the Church, her belief in the Holy Trinity, and her obligation to fight heresy” (107). That done, the Cardinal crowned her, after which she was led up to a throne on top of a stage to the left of the altar. Throughout the mass that followed, Francis held the heavy crown slightly over her head to spare her its weight. After receiving Communion, Mary returned to the palace and the ambassadors to their lodgings, following which they met with Longueville and other French nobles to arrange the details of a meeting between Louis and Henry that spring. Although the coronation had relatively minimal ceremony, Mary’s formal entry into Paris the next day was the most elaborate spectacle she had yet beheld in France, with good reason. On August 24, Louis wrote the magistrates of Paris, informing them of Mary’s impending arrival and ordering them to welcome her as splendidly as befitted a queen of France: “desiring with all our heart that she will be received, honored, and admitted the most honorably and grandly that it will be possible to do.”196 The officials responded by hiring the poet Pierre Gringore to produce a series of pageants redolent with symbolic imagery, the details of which he recorded in a magnificently illuminated manuscript he presented to Mary to commemorate the occasion. That morning, Louis departed early, leaving at seven to return to the capital, ensuring all attention would be fixed on Mary, who needed to perform publicly the dignity of a queen.197 Before she actually entered the city at noon, numerous delegations from the city paraded before her to do her reverence, including the Princess Claude, Louise of Savoy, Marguerite d’Alençon, and other noblewomen, several dukes, the provost of Paris, members of parliament, and the clergy, as well as numerous companies of archers and men-at-arms.198 Hall estimates the number of clerics alone at three thousand men (571). Having accepted the submission of her people, Mary entered the city in a manner calculated to impress. Ensconced in a gorgeous litter and wearing a gown made of cloth of gold covered with precious stones, as well as a necklace of pearls and other jewels, she was carried into her new capital, preceded by the Swiss guard, heralds bearing the arms of the kings of France and England, trumpeters and other musicians, then several French nobles, all richly costumed themselves.199 Francis rode at her side, followed by the Dukes of Alençon, Bourbon, Vendôme, and Longueville, as well as Brandon and Dorset.200 At the entrance, several of the city’s leading citizens met her with a canopy of cloth of gold embroidered with fleurs-de-lis and red roses, which they carried over her head as she progressed through the city. Along the way, the streets were decorated with embroidery and tapestries, ensuring that Paris looked its best to welcome its new queen.201 At seven different points throughout the city, the procession halted to view Gringore’s spectacles; the pageantry and procession lasted so long, noted the English ambassadors, that it was six o’ clock before Mary arrived at the banqueting for an additional round of sumptuous display.202

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 79

2/18/2011 6:22:09 PM

80

The French Queen’s Letters

Several themes recur in Gringore’s pageants, particularly the union of the French lily and the English rose, the comparisons between Mary and the Virgin, and Louis’s role in bringing happiness to his people, but what links them all is the theme of peace restored to the warring kingdoms.203 Baskervill notes that the first, second, and fourth pageants were organized by the city authorities (xiii). In the opening pageant, at the Porte Saint Denis, Gringore employed the ship imagery used previously in other towns but more elaborately. Here shown with the four winds of classical antiquity blowing the sails, the ship of state steered by the city of Paris carried Bacchus and Ceres holding vines and a wheat sheaf, respectively, symbolizing the abundance of France. Honor stood on the deck holding the arms of France, while mariners in the rigging sang songs welcoming Mary. After the song, an expositor explained that the city did Mary honor and presented the ship, which was under the governance of the king, to her (2–3). In the second pageant, at the Fontaine du Ponceau, a fountain with three spouts watered a lily and a rose, while three Graces—Prosperity, Joy, and Beauty—stood nearby to symbolize Mary’s virtues and the blessings her marriage gave the people (3–4). At the Porte aux Peintres, Mary saw the fourth pageant, in which Gringore arranged for a figure to represent God holding a large heart surrounded by the king’s order of knighthood, the Order of St. Michael, in one hand and an interlaced lily and rose in the other. Below God were seated a king and queen, with biblical verses written above and below, while underneath ladies symbolizing France and England sat on either end of the scaffold with Peace, Amity, and Confederation standing between them (6–7). The other four pageants were financed by individual organizations, but still organized by Gringore. The third pageant, which took place at La Trinité, was presented by the Confrères de la Passion, a theatrical fraternity who organized religious spectacles. Invoking the meeting of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, they portrayed a queen bringing peace coming to a king renowned for his wisdom (4–6). The fifth pageant, sponsored by the guild of fripiers, vendors of old clothes and other goods, took place at the church of the Holy Innocents. This spectacle featured a two-tiered scaffold, the top showing a tabernacle painted in gold called the throne of honor and a garden representing the realm of France surrounded by the Virtues Pity, Truth, Strength, and Mercy, and the bottom containing the wall and towers of a town and as well as a rosebush in the center labeled with the phrase from Ecclesiasticus 24:18, the “rose in Jericho.” During the pageant, the rosebush sprouted a bud that grew up to meet the lily reaching downwards, and then the two grew together up to the throne of honor, where a maiden appeared to welcome Mary and the peace between the lily and rose. Near the rosebush were the Pope and a figure called the Will of Princes, and near the church gate sat Peace, with Discord fully armed lying below her (7–10). Baskervill points out that the final two pageants were organized by officials of the Châtelet, the center of justice, and the Chamber of Accounts, instititions that served the whole country (xiii). The sixth spectacle, which took place at the Châtelet, was an elaborate affair starring members of the clergy and nobility (10–4). A large scaffold was constructed with a blue canopy representing the sky from which Justice carrying a sword descended to meet Truth rising, the two meeting in the middle under a large crown. Under that were twelve individual platforms upon which the Dukes of Burgundy, Normandy, and Toulouse, the Counts of Flanders, Champagne, and Toulouse, the Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishops of Langres, Laon, Beauvais, Chalons, and Noyons all stood “as though they were

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 80

2/18/2011 6:22:10 PM

Becoming the Queen

81

statues.”204 At the base of the scaffold appeared Phoebus, Diana, Minerva, Stella Maris, and Bon Accord. Gringore explains that Phoebus, the sun, is Louis, from whom Diana, the moon, or France, draws her light, while Minerva represents the prudence that Mary, the Stella Maris, or “star of the sea” employed to bring Bon Accord (i.e., good will) to France and England. Finally, the last pageant, located in front of the Palais Royal, depicted Gabriel saluting the Virgin Mary with a lily between them, while underneath stood the arms of Louis and Mary. Below that sat the King and Queen flanked by Justice and Truth, underneath whom was a pastoral scene portraying France as a garden of lilies where shepherds and shepherdesses sang Mary’s praises, likening her to the Virgin bringing peace (14–15). Each of these seven pageants placed remarkable emphasis on Mary’s role in restoring peace to England and France. As Giry-Deloison notes, “Peace was traditionally a female divinity but the 1514 pageants appear to be the first occasion on which a woman was so deliberately depicted as the main factor of peace and concord between two countries.”205 From the first pageant, in which the mariners proclaim “through you [Mary] we live in pleasure and joy,” Gringore’s rhetoric suggests that Mary has extraordinary influence.206 The second pageant is even more explicit, arguing that the marriage of the lily and the rose has resulted in prosperity, mirth, and beauty, all qualities that belong to Mary herself. The illustration accompanying the third pageant places Mary at center stage, bearing what Gringore calls a “peace” (“une paix”), pictured as a small gold shield with a red and white cross. But whereas the Montreuil-sur-mer entry depicted Mary and Louis as the Queen of Sheba and Solomon, Gringore uses the Old Testament monarchs only as a reference point. Instead he flatters his new monarch by implying that she actually surpasses the Queen of Sheba, who brought precious stones to Solomon, “but Mary our queen and mistress, / has brought to the gentle and courteous king / the gift of peace for the French and English.”207 Ignoring the roles of Henry, Wolsey, Louis, and Longueville in negotiating peace, these lines create a rhetorical space where Mary is the most powerful figure. Given the cultural emphasis on living chivalric roles, such gestures carry weight, particularly when the poetry also employs the rhetoric of marital diplomacy. In both the fourth and fifth pageants, Gringore includes written biblical verses within the visual spectacle that invoke the marriage rites of the Song of Solomon celebrating the beloved spouse. In the fourth scene, he combines two verses from the Song, chapter 4, to produce the line “Come my love, come be crowned,” staging the marriage as a love match while underscoring the link between matrimony and the throne.208 That link was carried further in the fifth pageant when Gringore portrayed the union of the lily and the rose. Each of the two towers built on the scaffold was painted with a biblical verse: on one, “Thy navel is like a round bowl never wanting cups [of liquor]. Thy belly is like a heap of wheat, set about with lilies” and on the other, “Let peace be in thy strength: and abundance in thy towers.”209 Here the sensual imagery of the marriage Song is linked explicitly with the coming of peace and plenty. Moreover, the reference to lilies invokes the French fleur-delis, a verbal image heightened by the visual spectacle of the rose and lily growing toward one another, uniting, and rising toward the throne of honor within the pageant’s action. Mary’s body has been set about with lilies, resulting in peace for France and England. The Marian metaphors of the final pageants carried the rhetoric of Mary as peacemaker still further. The sixth first extolled Louis as Phoebus, or the sun, giving light to all, especially Diana, the moon, reflecting that light. Instead of

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 81

2/18/2011 6:22:10 PM

Figure 1

Pageant scene depicting Mary bringing peace to Louis, from Pierre Gringore’s presentation copy. By kind permission of the British Library. © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Vespasian B.II, fol. 7v

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 82

2/18/2011 6:22:11 PM

Becoming the Queen

83

identifying Mary as the moon, which would underscore a subordinate role for her, Gringore clarifies that Diana is France. By contrast, Mary is the Stella Maris, the “star of the sea,” a poetic appellation for the Virgin Mother, by whose alliance with Minerva, or prudence, Bon Accord is brought to Henry and Louis. Gringore specifically states that Mary has created good will between the monarchs.210 Then, in the final pageant, which contrasted the scene of the angel Gabriel saluting the Virgin with that of Mary and Louis seated together, Gringore’s scaffold was decorated with a verse used as an epigraph comparing Mary’s coming directly to the “peace between God and mankind / By the means of the Virgin Mary.”211 Although the identical names make the comparison an obvious one, the implications nonetheless suggest that Mary can have an enormous impact on international affairs. Such rhetoric makes the underlying political messages of the pageants all the more significant. In the fifth pageant, on either side of the rosebush stood the pope and the Will of Princes (“Vouloir des princes”), with the tableau of Peace triumphing over Discord immediately below. These figures invoked the Papal League that initiated the war, the new Pope’s desire for peace, and the demands of kingly supremacy, all of which served to highlight the stakes involved in Mary’s marriage. More imagery in that pageant asked Mary to remember the importance of the virtues of pity, truth, strength, and clemency. Still other pageants, such as the fourth, emphasized the role of the monarch in bringing happiness to the people. There, above where the king and queen sat “in their triumph and magnificence,” God held the heart of the king, which was also inscribed with Proverbs 20:28: “Mercy and truth preserve the king and his throne is strengthened by clemency.”212 Although the line was directed at the king, Mary’s close proximity ensured that the lesson applied to her as well. Gringore’s depiction of Mary’s power and influence in these pageants is all the more significant given the ways that this rhetoric blurs the lines between fantasy and reality, emphasizing the authority spectacularity could create. In particular, the twelve peers of France who appeared in the fifth pageant as statues guarding the crown suggest the liminal quality of the boundary between rhetorical gestures and political power. Furthermore, unlike the political spectacle in England in which she had previously acted, Mary’s role here was more than allegorical. Instead of playing the Lady May, Mary found herself at the epicenter of Gringore’s rhetoric, all of it celebrating her virtues and influence. Three of the manuscript illustrations feature portraits of Louis and her, both wearing the same clothing in each. The illustration of the third pageant even places Louis to the left, leaving Mary presenting the gift of peace center stage. In his dedicatory letter to Mary, Gringore suggests that the dress and actions of Mary and the nobles are as carefully orchestrated as his pageants, highlighting the theatricality of the entire entry. He writes that he will not mention how her excellent gravity, honesty, and graciousness won the love of the people; rather, his account will only describe the triumphs made by the city in her honor, not the triumphs of the princes, dukes, and other nobles, nor the triumphs of the ladies of France and England in her train (1). By repeating the word “triumphes,” Gringore implies that each group employs a kind of theatre, thus further blurring the borders separating the pageant scaffold and the political stage. Given the powerful role he creates for Mary to inhabit, his rhetoric opens up the possibility of greater political influence at court.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 83

2/18/2011 6:22:14 PM

84

The French Queen’s Letters

Mary remained at center stage even after the pageants reached their conclusion. First visiting the churches of St. Genevieve des Ardans and Notre Dame, she greeted a delegation of scholars from the university and the clergy, all of whom did her reverence (15). The church bells were rung and te deums chanted, and then the archbishop pronounced a benediction welcoming her to France.213 Afterwards, she returned to the Palais Royal for the banqueting, where she was seated with Claude, Marguerite, and Louise, as well as other nobles. Here too Louis had ordered magnificence to welcome his bride; the hall was decked with rich tapestries, while the food was of such astonishing variety that “no living man had ever seen so sumptuous a supper at the entry of a queen.”214 One account records the splendid entremets, dishes that served as both entertainment and nourishment. These included a phoenix whose beating wings lit the fire that consumed it, St. George, the patron saint of England, on horseback leading a maiden, a porcupine and leopard holding the arms of France, the four sons of Aymon on a great horse, a sheep, and a joust between a cock and a hare.215 Even dinner thus carried some symbolic elements. Afterwards, Mary gave a ship made of silver and gilt as well as plate worth 200 marks to the heralds and musicians, who all called out “largesse, largesse!” in response, a customary acknowledgment of such gifts.216 Five days later, Mary received merchants of the city, who presented her with a gift of plate of silver-gilt and an invitation to a banquet, for which she asked her maître d’hotel to thank them and promise that “if there were any way she could intercede with Louis to the pleasure of the city, she would do so willingly.”217 In this fashion Mary performed publicly her gratitude for the people’s efforts while establishing her position as queen. Further blurring barriers of reality and chivalric fantasy, Francis organized a tournament in Mary’s honor that began on November 13 at the Parc des Tournelles. The jousting provided an outlet into which hostilities between England and France might be safely channeled through chivalric manners and athletic competition. The intense pressure on both sides was bound up in national pride, making the joust seem a forerunner of passionate sports rivalries today. And like sports reporting today, the results received international attention, so much so that a letter in the Venetian archives relates one observer’s account of the outcome.218 As a monarch who spent exorbitant sums on his sister’s outfitting for the sake of English pride, Henry also wanted to ensure his knights would uphold his honor. The team was carefully selected, with Brandon and Dorset at the head, and included the knights Edmund Howard, Edward Neville, Giles Capell, Thomas Cheyney, William Sidney, and Henry Guildford, all noted for their skill.219 Each of them received money for outfitting, Brandon receiving the most—one thousand pounds and bringing his own horses. In keeping with the romantic spectacle, Brandon, Sidney, and Neville all traveled into France, “all in grey coates and whodes, [hoods] becaws they would not be knowne,” according to Turpyn.220 In doing so, they followed the chivalric tradition of Arthurian knights disguising themselves for tournaments. Francis too spared no effort in creating an elaborate chivalric spectacle. Each element was carefully orchestrated; three days of jousts opened the tournament, beginning with a parade of knights who bowed before Louis and Mary, after which the jousting, then contests with spears and swords, concluding with the general melee. Hall records the magnificent apparel of the different parties: the Duke of Bourbon in tawny velvet and cloth of silver, the Earl of St. Paul in purple velvet and satin, Ferdinand, the son of the king of Naples, in cloth of gold and silver, the

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 84

2/18/2011 6:22:14 PM

Becoming the Queen

85

Duke of Vendôme in cloth of gold, Galeazzo de Sanseverino in blue satin, and most of all Francis and his men, who wore new clothes every day, all at the dauphin’s own cost, once in silver and gold, then crimson and yellow velvet, then white and green velvet, elaborately worked in embroidery or gold, “every daye in chaunge as the woorkers fantasye coulde devyse” (572). The Englishmen, he noted, “had ever on their apparell red crosses to be knowen for love of their countre” (572). Such a “team uniform” was the only detail he provided of his countrymen, concentrating instead on their deeds and strength. By all accounts there were many deeds by the English to praise, most especially by Brandon. The Venetian account notes particularly that the duke broke many lances, while the French chronicler specifies he ran fifteen courses the first day, doing well in nearly all of them, and on the next, unhorsing his opponent three times in a row.221 The other Englishmen, especially Dorset and his young brother Edward, also had much success. But the episode Hall chiefly marks, and which is supported by Dorset’s account to Wolsey, is that of Brandon’s fight with a German warrior. Apparently Francis, vexed by being thoroughly outshone by the English duke, arranged for a German man of uncommon size and strength to be placed secretly among the French party. According to Dorset’s letter, “they brought an Almayn that never came in the feld befor and put hym to my lord of Suffolk to have put us to shame if they coude but advauntage they gate noon of us but rather the contrary.”222 Hall crows with greater detail that the “great Almayne came to the barres fyersly with face hyd, because he would not be knowen, and bare his spere to the duke of Suffolke with all his strength, and the duke him received and for all his strength put him by strong strokes from the barriers . . . the duke by pure strength tooke hym about the necke and pomeled so aboute the hed that the bloud yssued out of his nose” (572). After that, Francis sneaked the defeated fighter out lest his cheating be discovered. Green speculates that the dauphin’s desire to humiliate Brandon was out of rivalry for Mary’s affections; while that is plausible, probably the greater blow was to his pride in that he was so thoroughly outclassed.223 Louis, who may well have appreciated Francis’s embarrassment, told Mary that Brandon and Dorset “did s[h]ame aule franse” with their skill.224 Brandon’s own account was modest, merely a scrawled note “My lord at the Writing of this lettre the Justes were doon and blissed be god alle our englissh men sped well as I am sure ye shall here by othre” at the end of a letter to Wolsey and telling Henry that he wished he were there to fight beside him, for Henry would “lyes [lose] non honnor” in the doing.225 But the effects of Brandon’s success reverberated far off the tourney grounds. As Steven Gunn notes, Brandon’s ability won him adherents amongst Louis’s nobles, particularly the noted jouster Guillaume Gouffier de Bonnivet, and more importantly, Louis’s confidence in him expanded exponentially, so much that he praised the duke effusively to Henry and promised to negotiate with the English via Brandon and Wolsey’s mediation.226 Given that Brandon was in France to set up a meeting between the two monarchs to discuss an alliance to seize Castile for the English and expel Ferdinand from Navarre, while winning Milan for Louis, the tournament had profound political effects.227 As for her part, Mary quite literally assumed center stage. Hall records that the entering knights “shewed them selfs before the kyng & quene who were [o]n a goodly stage, and the quene stode so that all men might see her, and wondered at her beautie, and the kyng was feble & lay on a couche for weakenes” (572). Hall’s

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 85

2/18/2011 6:22:14 PM

86

The French Queen’s Letters

account is crafted to contrast Louis’s illness with the health and vivacity of his young bride, to the pride of the English. Nevertheless, it is also apparent that Mary’s beauty became part of the spectacle, enhancing the magnificence of the French court and the reputation of her countrywomen. Moreover, she stood alone on that stage, occupying a space meant for two rulers, as men fought below to glorify her coronation. It might well have been a scene from a courtly romance, with all the authority such a position might confer. Within the rhetoric of politics of chivalry, Mary possessed considerable power. Certainly the faculty at the University of Paris believed Mary had influence. On November 26, she received a deputation of scholars led by Maître May de Breuil, a doctor of theology, who delivered an oration in her honor. Framing the speech as a salute from the University, “the mother and queen of studies” to Mary, “our mother and sovereign lady,” de Breuil flatters Mary and asks for her patronage.228 Even the manuscript imagery contributes to her authority, as an illustration features Mary at the center of a group of scholars, suggesting their close relationship.229 At the same time, the uneasy relations between France and England intrude as he argues the superiority of France, which had never killed or exiled its kings. Glenn Richardson observes that de Breuil avoids reference to any recent kings who fought with France by focusing on the age of Mary’s lineage, which supposedly reached back all the way to Troy.230 Such a link also highlights a shared mythic ancestry to France; since the kingdoms traced their origins to the Trojan princes Hector and Aeneas, Mary’s marriage to Louis unites the sundered lines. Like the authors of the entry spectacles, de Breuil also invokes biblical imagery, citing the examples of Abishag, Esther, and most of all, the Virgin Mary, again giving models of royal wives for Mary to follow.231 Richardson wryly notes that praising Mary as peacemaker neatly ignored Henry’s role in the alliance, yet even so, that the oration is extraordinary in its emphasis on Mary’s actions and influence. He also asserts that de Breuil reminds Mary of Anne of Brittany to suggest that the new queen emulate her predecessor’s patronage of the university and learning. Ultimately, de Breuil asks Mary to regard the university as her daughter and therefore to foster its continued success.232 The entire oration underscores the extent to which people perceived Mary’s influence; her relationship to the king made her a power worth courting. The popularity of the young queen was amply demonstrated later that day at the Hotel de Ville, where the city of Paris held a banquet to celebrate the coronation. When Mary arrived, accompanied by Brandon, Francis, Claude, Marie de Luxembourg, Marie d’Albret, and others, her party was unable to enter by the front door because of the crush of people waiting to catch a glimpse of her.233 Unwilling to have her archers force a path, Mary waited outside until another way in was found through the concierge’s door. Entering, she discovered many women of the city come to honor her. During the banquet, there were so many people that some of the dishes could not reach the tables, yet despite the difficulties there were a number of elaborate entremets, some sculpted like various animals, others representing the heraldic devices of Louis, Mary, and other nobles. Mary was the center of all scrutiny; when she received a gift of boxes of different spices, chroniclers even noted her graciousness in sending some to her stepdaughter Renée at Vincennes.234 Such details signify the city’s fascination with its new monarch, whose celebrity status and attendant influence guaranteed that suitors would come asking favors.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 86

2/18/2011 6:22:15 PM

Becoming the Queen

87

The Ambassador- Queen Around 1580, seeking to define the ideal ambassador, Torquato Tasso wrote that “the task of the ambassador is to bring together the minds (“unire gli animi”) of two princes.”235 However, he notes a fundamental contradiction in the ambassadorial role; the ideal mediator should be fair minded, showing favor to neither side, yet at the same time, the ambassador must serve his prince “with no regard for the usefulness or honor of the other” (54–5). Timothy Hampton points out that this “tension between moral idealism and political contingency shapes the theory of diplomacy and haunts the legacy of humanism” (55). Yet Tasso’s male pronouns elide the existence of the female ambassador: the foreign queen. If Tasso’s treatise accurately pinpoints the difficulty of the ambassador, how much more problematic was embassage for a woman? Her obligation was to serve both brother and husband, who each possessed legitimate claims on her loyalty. Should the two disagree, she was placed in an untenable position; eventually she had to choose sides, inevitably losing influence in the process. Mary’s efforts to foster good will between Louis and Henry must be read in light of such political realities. In order to satisfy both allegiances, she had to be peacemaker in actuality, not merely symbolically. Throughout her brief tenure as reigning queen of France, she therefore worked to build on the rhetoric of fraternal affection underpinning the marital alliance and engaged in practical acts of diplomacy designed to forge a strong partnership between the two monarchs. Examining her letters during this time period thus sheds lights on some of the political practices of early modern queenship. The success of marital politics relies partly on the rhetoric of love employed by the three members of the triangle. Henry therefore writes Louis, thanking him for his kind treatment of Mary and states that he is delighted to hear how well she pleases her husband, even remarking that before she left, he informed her that “if she wish and desire to have our love and fraternal benevolence” she must strive to ensure Louis’s happiness.236 With these words, Henry establishes the depth of his concern for Louis, ranking his new brother-in-law’s pleasure even above his sister’s. For her part, Mary sought to maintain strong ties with Henry even as she forged new bonds between brother and husband. In her letter to Henry dated November 15, she therefore opens with her gratitude for his continued affection as expressed through his letters: “I thank yowr grace for yowr kynde letters & for yowr good counsell the wiche I trust to our lord god I shall folow every day more & mor.”237 The continued epistolary exchange was a vital sign of Henry’s regard. She then reassures her brother, “how luffyngly the kyng my husband delyth with me the lord chambyrlaynn with other of yowr ambassadors can clerly informe yowr grace.”238 Louis completes the circle by praising Mary and promising to be a godfather to Henry’s son should Catherine give birth to a boy.239 The public nature of their letters ensured a wide audience to these displays of affection that confirmed the health of the alliance. In addition to such rhetoric, Mary also employed letters to arrange political favors. For example, on October 18, 1514, in one of her first letters as Louis’s queen, she asks Henry, on her husband’s behalf, to ask Thomas, Lord Darcy, to set a reasonable ransom for Francis Descars, who had been captured in the Battle of the Spurs and who was a friend of the dauphin, Longueville, and the king. In this fashion, she performs her duties as ambassador between the realms. More importantly, the request reveals how well Mary understood the networks of

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 87

2/18/2011 6:22:15 PM

88

The French Queen’s Letters

courtly politicking; getting Henry to grant this favor would signify to Louis and his dukes the extent of her influence with her brother. She explicitly claims this motive by writing, “I wold that my lord the kyng the bothe dukes to whom I am moche bownde shuld thynk hee shuld be the mor favord for my sak.”240 She wants the highest ranking nobles in France to know that she already has political power worth courting. Two days later, she writes again, marveling that she has not yet heard from Henry, but reminding him of her request regarding Descars. Then she informs Henry that Louis has ordered any shipwrecked Englishmen held prisoner in Boulogne to be freed according to “the custum of the see.”241 Shrewdly she suggests that Henry might match Louis’s magnanimity by arranging a low ransom as she desires.242 In addition, she subtly reminds him that she is not only a source of news but a potential influence on Louis in return. This intercession on Descars’s behalf indicates Mary’s political acuity. Moreover, it was not an isolated incident; she continued acting as an intermediary between Henry and Louis. On November 17, she wrote Henry asking that he arrange the release of Vincent Knight, a priest who had lived in England since their father’s day, and who frequently traveled to France at the behest of the Privy Council. But on the last trip, he was imprisoned in Tournai for seven weeks, then sent to the Fleet in London, “without any genuine cause,” where he remained for almost a year, losing all his property in the process of paying his jailers.243 Her language makes this a personal favor: “I pray you once again, for my sake and in recompense for the services that he has done for us and that he will be more desirous of praying to God for you and me, to do him some good.”244 Mary does not dwell on the injustice of the man’s situation; instead she shifts to the rhetoric of affection. Helping Knight is at once an appropriate exhibition of loyalty, a means of obtaining prayers of thanks, and a way to please Mary, all reasons calculated to appeal to Henry in a fashion only a sister could employ. This letter is Mary’s only missive to Henry written in French; it is an autograph letter written by a secretary. How much of it she actually dictated verbatim is impossible to know, yet her signature indicates Mary’s approval of its language and content. Nonetheless, her use of French is unusual in her correspondence with Henry; her choice to do so underlines the interest in the priest’s situation across the Channel. Moreover, Mary’s note that she was informed of this matter “by some of our especial servants in England” indicates that she did not instigate the inquiry into Knight’s circumstances.245 Rather Louis or one of his nobles provided the intelligence, since it is extremely unlikely Mary would have retained a network of information about English prisoners for her own use. Nevertheless, both of these situations—Descars’s and Knight’s—indicate Mary’s continued interest in fulfilling the role outlined for her by the spectacular rhetoric in her entries into various towns and by the coronation ceremony. Like Queen Esther, her duty was to intercede on behalf of her people. From the outset of her arrival in France, she did precisely that; in each town she entered, her queenly status permitted her to free any prisoners and records indicate that she exercised this privilege. 246 Her letters represent further examples of such attempts. Any success she achieved would underscore her growing authority as both queen and special ambassador. Political favors aside, Mary’s primary duty was to embody the Anglo-French alliance that was created by virtue of her marriage to Louis. Her presence in France, and all the rhetoric of family affection that ensued, created a strong bond between Louis and Henry that would allow them to act jointly to achieve their

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 88

2/18/2011 6:22:15 PM

Becoming the Queen

89

goals for territorial expansion, Louis in Milan and Henry in Castile. Louis further underscored Mary’s continued role in the process by claiming she urged him to undertake the Milanese expedition as a favor to her. Marco Dandolo, the Venetian ambassador, reported his conversation with Louis, who said “the Queen has made two demands of me: the one that we should undertake the Italian expedition, the other that we do go and see Venice.”247 Louis explained that he promised her both requests and then laid out his plans. Just as Longueville’s temporary residence in England once made possible the marital negotiations, so now Mary’s presence in France enabled secret negotiations. For instance, the tournament in her honor provided Brandon with political cover to visit France, there to arrange a meeting between his king and Louis that spring and to deal with other diplomatic issues, such as the Duke of Albany’s involvement in Scottish affairs. After the coronation festivities were over, Mary went with Louis to St. Germain in Picardy to await word from Henry about their meeting.248 Presumably when Henry arrived, she would be there to meet him at Louis’s side, providing a reminder of the new fraternal bond between the monarchs. Had Louis not died when he did, almost certainly their plans would have gone forward; as late as December 8, the Venetian ambassador in Rome reported that Pope Leo had tried to dissuade Henry from assisting Louis in Milan, but that Henry’s support was absolute given his firm alliance.249 Clearly Mary’s influence on Louis was marked. After Louis’s death, the poet Jean Bouchet wrote a fictional verse epistle in Mary’s voice in which he noted that people knew to approach Mary for favors, for Louis delighted in pleasing her.250 Bouchet’s lines might be fiction, but there is every indication that his verse was echoed in reality. By December 14, the Venetians had commissioned a new ambassador, Francesco Donato, to pay his respects to Mary and offer her the gift of a silk hat and a ruby and a pearl that could be attached to the hatband, altogether worth 1,000 ducats.251 Such gifts would establish diplomatic relations with Mary and pave the way for future favors. Her close relationship with Louis encouraged such actions. Louis’s delight in his young wife continued to the end. On December 28, he wrote Henry that Brandon would tell him of “the great contentment that I have in the Queen my wife, your good sister” whose conduct toward him inspires him to “love and honor her more and more each day.”252 Mary’s careful and loving attentions had produced results: a strong marital bond that brought with it political power and international influence. However difficult it might be for ambassadors to serve two masters, Mary’s position as ambassador–queen required her to do so, and her diplomatic talents, rhetorical gifts, and personal ability laid the foundation for strong success in the future.

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 89

2/18/2011 6:22:15 PM

9780230620308_04_ch02.indd 90

2/18/2011 6:22:16 PM

CHAPTER 3

MARRYING WHERE “MY MYND IS”

Excerpt from Mary’s letter to Wolsey, dated January 10, 15151: I pray yow as my trust ys in yow for to Remembr me to the kyng my brother for sowche Causses & bessynes as I have for to do / for as now I have no nother to put my trust in but the kyng my brother & yow and as yt shall ples the kyng my brother and hys Counsell I wolbe horderd & so I pray yow my lord to show hys grace seying that the kyng my howsbande ys departed to god of whos sole god pardon and wher as yow a vyse me that I shulde macke no promas my lord I trust the kyng my brother & yow wold nat Reken in me souche Chyldhode / I trust I have so horderd my selfe so sens that I Came hether / that I trust yt hathe ben to the honar of the kyng my brother & me sens I Come hether & so I trust to contenew.

Louis’s death on New Year’s Day, 1515, less than three months after the wedding in Abbeville, resulted in a profound change in Mary’s circumstances.2 Her careful work laying the foundation for the Anglo-French alliance was over. Once it was determined she was not pregnant with Louis’s child, she resumed her eligibility on the European marriage market. There she was embroiled in a power struggle between two proud young monarchs—Henry and the new king Francis I—both of whom were determined to wrest control of the situation by arranging Mary’s next marriage to his best advantage. Her position could not have been easy, particularly since she was determined to plot her own course by marrying Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk. The machinations that culminated in Mary’s clandestine (and technically treasonous) second marriage, combined with her subsequent need to appease Henry’s anger, have engendered a slew of feverish romantic imaginings. Yet those scholars, novelists, and even television scriptwriters who perpetuate the myths of a hysterical Mary petulantly flouting her brother’s authority or of an amorous princess quixotically seeking a fairy-tale ending overlook the vastly different voice crafted in her letters, a voice that explicitly claimed awareness of “the bessynes [business] as I have for to do.”3 All of Mary’s prior experience ensured that she knew how political was the issue of her marriage and that to claim agency over her own life successfully would require careful maneuvering and rhetorical skills of the highest order. In the above letter to Wolsey, her first after Louis’s death, Mary displays her political acuity by subtly affirming her loyalties to the archbishop. In the opening line, she underscores the value she places on their epistolary relationship when she thanks Wolsey “for your kynde & lovyng letter” and asks him to continue the “good lessones that yow hathe gyffen to me.”4 This language signals her willingness to accept his counsel in the future while acknowledging her appreciation of his efforts on her behalf. Mary then flatters him, remarking “for as now I have no nother to put my trust in but the kyng my brother & yow.” It is significant that she mentions no other member of the Privy Council, not even Brandon; the exclusivity of her trust increases its value. Finally, at the end of the letter, she

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 91

2/18/2011 3:48:21 PM

92

The French Queen’s Letters

offers political favors in exchange for his assistance: “yff ther be any thynge that I may do for yow I wold be glade for to do yt in thys partes I shalbe glade to do yt for yow.” Repeating the phrase ‘I shalbe glade to do yt” in this fashion highlights the depth of her commitment to him should he remain her ally in the upcoming months. Such promises indicate her participation in the economy of influence by which the court functioned. At the same time, Mary takes pains to project the persona of a loving, obedient sister, emphasizing her awareness of the public nature of such letters. Her thanks for Wolsey’s counsel suggest her willingness to be ruled by others. Carrying that rhetoric further, she performs a gesture of submission by pledging “as yt shall ples the kyng my brother and hys Counsell I wolbe horderd & so I pray yow my lord to show hys grace.” Asking Wolsey to show Henry her letter adds significance to her flattery as she broadcasts her trust in Wolsey to his king. Moreover, it demonstrates Mary’s awareness of the rhetorical stance a queen would be expected to assume in these circumstances. Despite taking a submissive posture, Mary nevertheless displays pride in her achievements in France and protests indignantly any hint that she lacks awareness of the political ramifications of the possibilities surrounding her future. In the beginning of the letter, she asks Wolsey to remind Henry of her situation, describing the matter as the “bessynes as I have for to do.” However, while she is happy to have Wolsey’s advice, she reminds him that she is fully cognizant of the importance of her actions: “wher as yow a vyse me that I shulde macke no promas my lord I trust the kyng my brother & yow wold nat Reken in me souche Chyldhode.” Her characterization of any rash decision as “such childhood” provides a powerful counterpoint to depictions of Mary as merely infatuated or ignorant, suggesting instead that she will act out of considered knowledge. Furthermore, she notes, “I trust I have so horderd my selfe so sens that I Came hether / that I trust yt hathe ben to the honar of the kyng my brother & me sens I Come hether & so I trust to contenew.” These lines reveal her awareness of the work she did in France to support the alliance between Henry and Louis as well as remind her readers of the honor she accrued thereby. The persona Mary crafts in this letter is calm, assured, and knowledgeable, aware of the political implications of her actions, a far cry from the spoiled, selfish woman of later depictions. Careful examination of the rhetoric of Mary’s letters sheds new light on the events that took place throughout the first five months of 1515. In all the furor of speculation regarding candidates for her hand, she elected to marry an English duke, a man of her own choosing.5 She did so knowing the personal and political ramifications of her decision. Studying her writing reveals a sophisticated blending of epistolary tropes with deft persuasive rhetoric calculated to appeal to Henry. In addition, her letters demonstrate Mary’s perception of the authority of her position, especially given her popularity as a celebrated peacemaker, as well as the skilled politicking she employed to maneuver her brother into acknowledging her right to marry where “my mynd is,” not where her brother or son-in-law might choose.6

La Reine Blanche: Louis’s Death and its Aftermath “Queste gote mi ha dà un poco di fastidio,” Louis told Marco Dandolo, the Venetian ambassador in Paris on December 22; although the gout was troubling

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 92

2/18/2011 3:48:22 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

93

him a little, the monarch insisted, he would soon embark on the Milanese expedition, leading over 30,000 men, including 6,000 Englishmen, to claim his rights.7 Two days later, Dandolo started writing another letter to the Venetian government reporting that although the captains had begun to arrive in Paris, Louis was experiencing pain in his back and that his gout had debilitated him greatly.8 When Dandolo resumed that letter eight days later, he informed his correspondents that Louis was in great danger and had received last rites; Dandolo must have paused in his writing, for the next sentence explains that a messenger he had stationed at the palace had just brought the news that the French king was dead. Louis’s death was not unexpected. Fleuranges notes that for the past five or six years, his monarch had maintained his health only through strict diet and quiet living, which he abandoned to join his wife in the festivities that had ensued since her arrival, defying the warnings of his physicians.9 Holinshed concludes, “he so ferventlie loved [Mary] that he gave himselfe over to behold too much hir excellent beautie bearing then but eighteene yeares of age, nothing considering the proportion of his owne yeares, nor his decaied complexion; so that he fell into the rage of a feaver, which drawying to it a sudden flux, overcame in one instant [his] life.”10 Thus the chroniclers transformed Louis’s demise into a cautionary tale of May–December marriages, with some anti-English sentiment added for good measure by Fleuranges, since it is in the passage commenting on Louis’s death that he quotes the basoche’s mockery of Mary as a filly sent to carry Louis to his grave. Mary’s private reactions—whether grief at the passing of her husband, regret for the loss of her status as queen, relief at the end of sexual obligation to a man so greatly her senior, anxiety about the future, or a mixture of any such imaginable emotions—are ultimately impossible to discern, making further speculation futile. Yet far more important were her public actions that performed her sorrow for Louis’s death in a manner befitting the dignity of a queen. According to Fleuranges, on January 2, she followed the example of her predecessors by withdrawing to the Hôtel de Cluny for a period of forty days.11 There she wore garments all in white (hence the title “la reine blanche” or “the white queen”) to signify her mourning. Tradition also held that her rooms should be darkened with heavy curtains and lit only by candles. In conforming to this period of seclusion, Mary acceded to French custom while publicly honoring Louis’s memory and fulfilling her duty as his queen. Again she accepted the ceremonial role appointed to her position, using her body (and its absence from court) to symbolize a public outpouring of grief. At the same time, Mary was not in complete isolation; Fleuranges notes that she held as great estate as she did when Louis was still alive. Another contemporary writer, Jean Barrillon, suggests that Francis treated her very well, “visiting often and acting with all possible kindness.”12 Two separate Venetian sources confirm that Francis visited every evening, making extravagant promises to serve her and to promise her as much authority as she held while Louis lived.13 In addition, she was accompanied by French noblewomen, including Marie d’Albret, the Countess of Nevers, and Madame d’Aumont.14 Despite this testimony, some biographers have suggested that Mary’s removal from society created enormous tension, laying the foundation for the depiction of a hysterical Mary confronting Brandon with wild demands. Richardson, for instance, imagines the following scene: “In this macabre atmosphere Mary lay alone all day long, her darkened chamber silent, almost airless and virtually unheated, with no friend to whom she

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 93

2/18/2011 3:48:22 PM

94

The French Queen’s Letters

could pour out her troubled thoughts.”15 Small wonder that he argues the stress of her confinement led Mary to “the brink of a nervous breakdown.”16 His depiction contrasts sharply with the French and Venetian accounts, whose accuracy is further confirmed by Mary’s letter to Wolsey—that calm, proud letter discussed above—which was dictated to a secretary on January 10, over a week after her arrival at the Hôtel de Cluny. Far from weeping alone in a dark chamber, Mary was conducting business. In addition to a display of public mourning, Mary’s seclusion was tied to the practical issue of pregnancy. Should she be carrying Louis’s son, he would be the next king, not Francis. International speculation ensued.17 Pierre de Bourdeille, Abbé de Brantôme, would later claim that Mary so desired to remain queen that she fabricated a pregnancy using cloth to pad her body until she was foiled by the sharp observations of Louise, Francis’s mother.18 Brantôme’s account, unsubstantiated by any other source, is absurd; Mary’s ambitions no longer lay in France, but were focused on Brandon and England. Nonetheless, his allegation illustrates the measures an early modern courtier could imagine a queen taking in order to remain in power. Ultimately, Fleuranges’s testimony makes far more sense; he notes that three weeks after Louis’s death, Mary assured Francis that she “knew no other king than him” for she was not pregnant.19 Hearing the good news, the new monarch proceeded with his coronation on January 25 at Rheims. Furthermore, when the English ambassadors arrived in February, they promptly wrote Henry denying the rumor; neither they nor the physicians saw any sign of pregnancy, and when they offered Mary Henry’s congratulations on the child, she replied that “it was not soo as yet.”20 The attention paid to such rumors correlated with the uncertainty over Mary’s future and her potential impact on international relations. Again all eyes were focused on France; for instance, the Venetian ambassador Sebastian Giustinian reported back to the Signory that he had discussed Francis’s likely actions with the Doge of Genoa, who told him that the Emperor, some of the Spanish nobles, and the Duke of Milan all believed he would proceed immediately to attack Milan, while he himself and others opined that the new king would remain in France to settle affairs with Henry.21 The peace treaty binding England and France stipulated that the agreement would remain in force for one year beyond either monarch’s death.22 Nevertheless, certain matters between the two realms needed resolution, not least of which was Mary’s disposition. Therefore on January 14, Henry promptly sent a letter offering regret for Louis’s passing, expressing joy at Francis’s accession, thanking him for his care of Mary, and noting that he was sending Brandon, Sir Richard Wingfield, and Dr. Nicholas West to France as ambassadors to comfort her further and discuss all relevant affairs.23 In particular, the amount of wealth Mary would carry away from her marriage was at issue. Although the marriage treaty made stipulations regarding her dower and Mary’s right to retain the goods she brought to France, the jewels Louis had given her were particularly contested, for if he bestowed them on the queen of France, then the presents rightfully belonged to Mary’s successor, but if he had given the jewelry to Mary, his wife, then she would have a lawful claim to them. Such issues needed resolution before any new marriage treaty could be formed. Henry’s urgency was almost certainly spurred by repeated warnings that the French would never let Mary leave. In particular his ambassadors in the Low Countries, influenced by Maximilian and Margaret, counseled haste. Writing from Maximilian’s court at Innsbruck on January 14, Robert Wingfield advised

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 94

2/18/2011 3:48:23 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

95

action whether or not Mary was pregnant, urging Henry that “greett dylygence be maade on youre parte that the qwene youre systir yiff she be with chylde be saffly kepte from dawnger . . . yiff she be not with chylde but Rather a mayde as I thinke veryly she is that ye maye be possessyd of hyr boody in as goodly haste as possyble for hyr surete and boothe youre Conforth.”24 Wingfield’s language here focuses on Mary’s body, both its vulnerability and its value. Similarly, Thomas Spinelly, who was stationed with Margaret in Brussels, wrote on several occasions, sometimes cautioning Henry that many people there conjectured the French would not permit Mary to marry elsewhere, fearing “summe alyaunce to their prejudice.”25 A few weeks later, Spinelly wrote again that Margaret feared “whatsoever good wurdes the frenche king gyveth unto your ambassadours he shall in nowise suffre the frenche qwene to departe tul she be maryed at his pleasr And untul oon of his frendys & noon of his enemyez.”26 Even Brandon wrote Henry from France of rumors of a match for Mary with the Duke of Lorraine, while Mercurin de Gattinare wrote Margaret suggesting it would be Charles, Duke of Savoy, instead.27 All were aware that if Francis were to wed Mary to one of his own nobles, he would prevent Henry from forming a new alliance to the detriment of the French and ensure that her expensive dower payments remained in France. In late December, 1514, hearing the rumors of Louis’s illness, Wolsey perceived the dangers of Mary contracting herself with a French nobleman. A draft of his letter warning her survives; he opens by counseling her to take Louis’s death “wysely and pacyently” as God’s will and “not by extremyte of sorow to hurt your nobyl parson Assuryng yowr grace that the kyng your most lovyng brother wole nevyr forsake but most fastely stycke onto yow.”28 Wolsey’s rhetoric pays tribute to Mary’s supposed grief; no matter her genuine feelings, her role in the marital alliance called for her to enact the part of a bereaved widow. More boldly, first calling Mary to remember all his service to her and to act only by Henry’s will, Wolsey then names the true danger: “yf Any mocions of maryage or other fortune to be mad onto yow in no wyse geve heryng to them. And this don ye shalt not fayle to have the kynge fast and lovyng to yow and to Ateyne to yowr desyre.” If she obeys Henry, Wolsey promises never to forsake her but to help her to return home with honor and attain the “[acomp]plyshement of yowr desyre.” Almost certainly, Wolsey here refers to her marriage with Brandon. It was this letter that provoked Mary’s proud response that she was not such a child as to act so rashly. Nonetheless, both this letter and its answer indicate the close political alliance between the archbishop and Mary. They also illustrate the extent of her worth on the marriage market as well as the intensity of the pressure Mary would feel to choose a Frenchman. Henry shared Wolsey’s fears that Mary might accede to French temptations. He therefore instructed Brandon and his fellow ambassadors to deliver a letter to her and convey his verbal instructions that she should not seek to remain in France. Her response represents a carefully fashioned appeal to Henry’s vanity while simultaneously encouraging and calming his fears. This apparent contradiction is easily explained: Mary wanted to strengthen Henry’s trust in her, yet worry him sufficiently so that he might see Brandon as the better alternative to a French marriage. In his private account to Henry, Brandon notes that Mary stated that she “was much bound to God that he had given her so good and loving a brother which she was always found both a father and brother and now specially in her most need. Wherefore she prayed God that she might live no longer than she should do that thing that should be to your contentation and

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 95

2/18/2011 3:48:23 PM

96

The French Queen’s Letters

pleasure.”29 Such lines confirm her trust in her brother’s love as well as her loyalty to him. The official letter from all three ambassadors echoes Brandon’s but adds, “as touchyng consent to any mariage in thies partes she trusteth that your grace knoweth her mynde therin.”30 Moreover, they also include Mary’s assertion that “she hath been sor pressed in that matier” by the French king “yet she never consented nor never wole do [but rather] suffre thextremitie of death and astouching her here she never was nor is mynded therto for she [counts] every day an hundred till she may see your grace.”31 Both missives reveal Mary’s calculated flattery of her brother and emphasize her promise to obey him. Yet the second one shows how carefully Mary attempts to provoke Henry’s anxiety; she is feeling pressured by Francis, just as he anticipated. However, she has already reminded him that he has a way to counter the French king’s influence; should Henry accede to Mary’s “mynde therin” and allow her to wed Brandon, she would bring herself and her wealth as dowager queen back to England. She is eager to come home, she tells him, suggesting that the power to thwart French ambition is his. For her part, Mary may well have felt anxiety over the future and grief at her situation. She had only to look to the example of her sister-in-law, Catherine of Aragon, after Prince Arthur’s death, to recall how precarious a woman’s position could be, trapped in a foreign country without the protection of a clearly defined role carrying its attendant authority. Subject to Henry VII’s refusal to commit firmly to an Anglo- Spanish alliance, Catherine lived in greatly reduced circumstances until Henry’s death freed his son to choose her as his bride. Mary and Catherine’s close relationship guaranteed that Mary must have seen the Spanish princess’s frustration and worry, remembering which must have strengthened her resolve to arrange matters to her own satisfaction. Moreover, her circumstances had altered so radically—from celebrated monarch to secluded dowager queen—that she must have felt some shock at the suddenness of the change.32 Her responsibility as peacemaker was over, the accord she had worked so hard to establish was preserved for one more year, yet she had to have wondered what new challenges Henry might set her. Already it was rumored that Henry was looking for a new royal husband, including her former fiancé Charles of Castile or even his grandfather Maximilian.33 Others, including Prince John of Portugal and William, Duke of Bavaria, were also in the running.34 Nonetheless, it is clear from her reasoned responses to Henry’s ambassadors and her persuasive letters that Mary had formed a careful strategy designed to achieve her own goal of marriage to Brandon.

Letters, Chivalry, and a Spot of Blackmail Even after Louis’s death, Mary remained an inspiration for writers. But instead of celebrating her as a peacemaker, the poets Guillaume Crétin and Jean Bouchet wrote verse epistles in the young queen’s voice, imagining Mary as a symbol of France’s mourning. Crétin’s letter-poem, which purports to be written to Francis’s sister, Marguerite d’Alençon, contains an outpouring of grief as Mary begs Marguerite to write back to help Mary bear her pain.35 Bouchet’s Mary writes to Henry, praising Louis’s goodness to her and all his people.36 These poems underscore that members of the court understood the letter as an appropriate genre for Mary’s voice. Furthermore, they emphasize tropes of epistolary

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 96

2/18/2011 3:48:23 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

97

rhetoric; Bouchet’s Mary explains that she has tried to write for three months, but each time her tears soak the paper: A clear stream roaring and glistening runs from my eyes trickling down my face and then descends to the paper.37

Even this fictive version of Mary’s voice acknowledges the power of a letter, especially when the sender is somehow linked physically to the paper itself through her tears. Now, with her tears controlled enough to continue, her “hand yet trembles for sorrow.”38 The letter is a clear extension of Mary, embodying the marks of her grief. Mary’s own letters in the months after Louis’s death focus more on persuading Henry to keep his promises than on her grief for Louis, but nonetheless, like the verse epistles, her letters play with epistolary tropes, particularly with regard to the letter as connection between the sender and recipient. In addition, as she writes, Mary draws on the discourse of chivalry to script roles for herself and Henry to fulfill. These letters are carefully fashioned; as surely as Crétin and Bouchet created fictional Marys to convey their messages, so too Mary crafts a persona calculated to appeal to Henry. Studying her language reveals how sophisticated the rhetoric of an early modern queen might be. All of her letters work to fashion a relationship that posits Henry as affectionate, indulgent brother and Mary as his loyal, adoring sister.39 She is scripting the role she wants him to play, particularly after Louis’s death; if Henry acts in accordance with her wishes outlined in the letter, he will fulfill his role as “my own good and most kynde brother.”40 In fact, in one letter Mary beseeches Henry to “to be good lorde and brother to me” no less than five separate times. 41 Such repetition underscores the importance of her need for Henry to act as she hopes, for if he reacts badly, it could mean disaster for her and Brandon. Through such greetings and appeals, Mary reminds Henry of his real affection for his younger sister and his responsibility to her as both monarch and brother. Mary’s closing signatures tell Henry how to read Mary herself. Her references to “your lovyng marie,” “your humbel and lovyng suster mary quene of france,” “your lovyng suster and trowe sarvante mary quene of france,” and “your lovyng and most humble sister Mary” underscore her love and loyalty to Henry.42 Closings such as “trowe sarvante” not only affirm Mary’s commitment to her brother but also suggest that she served Henry in the past by marrying Louis. Although Mary emphasizes her humility, her signatures also accentuate her status as queen of France, for which she merits respect. Using her title reminds Henry that she has fulfilled her side of their bargain and implies that Henry should now reciprocate. In emphasizing her title, Mary conforms to epistolary conventions, especially the vestiges of the medieval ars dictaminis (rules for letter-writing with lengthy proscriptions about modes of address). But as Charles Beem demonstrates in his work on the Empress Matilda, from early in English history, the use of a title was also an important part of the construction of a female monarch’s authority.43 These salutations and signatures are not merely pro forma demonstrations that Mary is familiar with epistolary conventions, though they do function in that manner. Rather, the specific form she chooses fashions the roles she and Henry

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 97

2/18/2011 3:48:24 PM

98

The French Queen’s Letters

will play in this epistolary relationship. The significance of such rhetorical construction of reader and sender is exemplified in Wolsey’s revisions that survive in one of Mary’s letters. In a draft of a formal letter to Henry, which was probably ultimately intended for public reading to his council, Mary emphasizes the bonds of affection between herself and Henry, but Wolsey’s corrections change that emphasis to one of humility alone. 44 For instance, he alters her opening sentence “in most tender and loving maner possible I recommende me to your grace” to “in most humble maner.” Like Mary, Wolsey seems to have understood that the salutation set the tone of the letter. No part of the letter was exempt from scrutiny, since each contributes to the effectiveness of the overall argument. Because the letter can be construed as a tangible link between absent lovers, it becomes the consolation for absence, an idea that Mary would have seen Chaucer frequently employ in Troilus and Criseyde, where reading and writing letters sustains the lovers. When Troilus is absent, Pandarus runs back and forth bearing letters “to quike alwey the fir” between them (III, 484–88). When Criseyde is absent from Troy, Troilus re-reads her letters repeatedly: The lettres ek that she of old tyme hadde hym ysent, he wolde allone rede an hondred sithe atwixen noon and prime, refiguring hire shap, hire wommanhede, withinne his herte, and every word or dede that passed was. (V, 47–74)

Letters function not only as a memorial, but as a means of re-creating Criseyde’s self. She is so identified with the letter, reading her words helps Troilus to “refigure her shape” before him. Similarly, in Hawes’s Comforte of Lovers, the courtly romance envisioning Mary in the starring role, Amour sees images of the letters he and Pucell wrote each other in the walls of the tower where he sits lamenting their separation.45 Seth Lerer notes that the combination of books and letters Amour sees “are the source of physical well-being: the maintenance of the intact private body depends on the reading and writing of texts.”46 But where Lerer sees this as a private act, the letters’ dual connection to lover and lady means that Amour is looking outwardly as much as inwardly, a reminder that letters inherently straddle the boundaries between public and private. Following such literary examples, Mary relies on the letter as public sign of Henry’s favor and private means of influence, especially by drawing on the letter’s ability to sustain a relationship. In her correspondence with Henry during the Guildford affair, she refers to the letter mainly as a point of contact and chides him for not upholding his end: “marvelyng moche that I never herd from you syns the departynge so oftenn as I have sent and wrytten to you and now am I left post a lone inn effecte.”47 The frequency of Mary’s letters stands in stark contrast to Henry’s failure to write; she fears lest this indicates a waning in his affection for her. After Louis’s death, Mary’s characterization of Henry’s letters changes; they are not only contact but also a source of comfort providing a strong connection to Henry. She writes, “thancke yow for the good and kynde letters that yow have sent me the wyche has bene the grettys comfort myt be to me yn thys worlde dessyring yowr grace so for to contenue for thyr ys nothyng so grete astor [a store] to me as for to se yow.”48 Her description draws on the precise vocabulary of fictional epistles, that in receiving Henry’s letters, she sees him. Such language evokes

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 98

2/18/2011 3:48:24 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

99

the figure of Troilus after Criseyde’s departure or Amour, who notes that letters bring him comfort; the association created by the letter is so strong it invokes the presence of the sender.49 Yet in the same passage, just like Ovid’s Penelope ordering Ulysses not to write again but come home, Mary hopes for the greater comfort of Henry’s literal presence and urges him to bring her back to England. In this fashion Mary simultaneously employs and challenges the literary convention of epistolary connections. A letter might console for a time, but ultimately it fails to satisfy the desire for actual presence. Throughout this letter, Mary emphasizes the close bond she and Henry share emotionally and politically. She repeats her promise to Wolsey not to wed in France but here explicitly links that vow to her allegiance to Henry: “I promes yowr grace that I never mayde thym promes nar no nother for them nar newer wil[l until] that I knoke yowr [grace’s mind].”50 Here Mary signals her willingness to follow Henry’s lead and then carries that rhetoric further, noting her confidence in him, who “ys al the comforte t[hat I have] yn thys worlde [and I tru]st yowr grace w[ill not] fele for I have nothy[ng in the] worlde that I do car for [but] to have the good and [kind] mynd that yowr grace hade ever towarde me and I besewche yowr grace for [to] contenwe.”51 With such language Mary constructs their relationship as one based on devotion and loyalty even while she asks Henry not to fail in his trust. If he should keep his promise, he fulfills her expectations and merits the loyalty she has given. In addition to hinting at his promises regarding her marriage, Mary gives Henry another tangible opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty even as she bids for his sympathy. In the last lines of the letter, she mentions that she has asked his surgeon Master John to stay with her in France because she was suffering from toothache and the “mother” and requests that Henry not be upset with the doctor as a result.52 Although it is natural for Mary to want a familiar physician to attend her, asking this favor allows her to appeal to her audience by rousing Henry’s protective instincts. Moreover, by referring to the “mother,” Mary invokes a woman’s disease, one whose very name reminds Henry that she is valuable to him for the heirs she might produce. After these subtle appeals, Mary adds that she has already assured Master John of Henry’s forbearance: “I bare hym an hand that yowr grace wer contented that he shold be here with me a wyl and so I pray yowr grace [*] to gefne hym lefe for to tarry here awyle with me” (fol. 256r). She thus confidently proclaims Henry’s forgiveness before even asking permission, subtly suggesting that she knows how Henry will react and maneuvering the king into a position where denying her request would defy societal dictates regarding the care of widows. What begins as a ploy for sympathy also demonstrates her ability to position her brother within the framework of chivalric traditions that demand a certain code of behavior. Another of Mary’s letters invokes Henry’s responsibility to protect her, this time to preserve her reputation. In a letter dated February 15, she charges that in order to prevent the new king of France from importuning her with inappropriate suggestions, she has been forced to tell him of her preference for Brandon. She writes explicitly of the “exstreme payne [and an]nuyans I was yn [by reason]e of sche seute as th[e ki]ng mayd on to [me not accordi]ng with my honoure.”53 The precise nature of Francis’s proposition is left unsaid, yet the implications are clear. Mary begs Henry to confirm his intentions to let her marry the duke; otherwise Francis will continue to plague her with his “[for]mar fantesy & sut[es]” (fol. 249r). As before, she relies on Henry’s love to save her or else she will “ly[ve] as desswlate a lyfe as ever hade cretawre the wyche I knoke wele shale be

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 99

2/18/2011 3:48:24 PM

100

The French Queen’s Letters

myne eende” (fol. 249v). Her pathos dominates the letter, as her final paragraph repeats her plea: “[I mo]st humbly besche yowr [grac]e to conseder yn case [that] ye make deffycowlte to [con]desend to the promesys [as I] wyche [wish] the frenche kyng [will] take nown cowrage to [re]new hys swttes [suits] to me [ass]uryng yow that I hade [r]ather to be owt of the world yn yt so shold hapyne.”54 By emphasizing her desperation, Mary creates a powerful argument designed to appeal to Henry’s outrage and his conscience. It would have been his duty to prevent her from being harassed by the French king; as Naomi Miller and Naomi Yavneh note, brothers “often assumed authority over their sisters, whether to protect them or to control any threats to the family honor.”55 Given Francis’s reputation regarding women, Mary could easily maintain the need for such protection. Moreover, as a would-be chivalric king, Henry is doubly bound to protect her, since she is also a widow. Written in Mary’s own hand, like most of her missives to Henry, this letter employs the same epistolary trope positing the value of such effort that Mary had first used in her letters to Louis. Moreover, since Mary’s hand so resembled Henry’s own, seeing her writing would be a palpable reminder of their sibling relationship as well as the lessons with their mother Elizabeth. In addition, Mary further affirms her awareness of the significance of handwriting when she asks other people to write on her behalf with their own hands. For instance, she tells Henry that she has asked Francis if “he wolde of hys hande wrete unto your grace” (fol. 248v). When she requests Henry’s consent to the marriage with Brandon, she begs him “to advertysses the sayd kyng by wryteyng of yowr owne hande of your playsowr in that be halfe” (fol. 249r). Henry’s written permission will stave off Francis’s importunity, while his handwriting will provide sufficient reassurance of the seriousness of Henry’s intent.

Figure 2

Mary’s letter to Henry in her own hand, dated November 15, 1514. Note the signature crossed out and moved below the letter to remind him subtly of her rank. By kind permission of the British Library. © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Vespasian F.III, fol. 50

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 100

2/18/2011 3:48:25 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

101

In addition to emphasizing her hand, this letter also foregrounds Mary’s mind: the “good mynde” she bears toward Brandon (fol. 248v). Such phrasing recurs in her letters; in earlier missives Mary asks for Henry’s “good and kind mynd” towards her, but as her doubts grew regarding Henry’s faith, she altered her language to put the emphasis on marrying where “my mynd is.”56 This shift signals her growing independence as she places her own desires before those of her brother. Moreover, by highlighting her mind’s role in her decision, Mary subtly underscores the rationality of her choices, her wording suggesting thoughtful deliberation. Above all, the language invokes Mary’s speech renouncing her betrothal “of her own mind and of her own accord” the previous summer.57 That declaration established a powerful precedent for Mary’s autonomy; by utilizing the same words, she calls on the authority of that moment to justify her current actions. Mary’s strongest letter to date emphatically asserts the shift from Henry’s mind to her own and proclaims her willingness to act in defense of her decisions.58 It opens softly, “my most kynd and lovyng brother,” as she tenderly recalls his affection for her, wishes him health and peace, and affirms that all her trust is in him. She then begs that he remember his promise regarding her marriage: “I be shiche yowr grace that yow wel kype all the promises that yow promest me wane I take my lefe of yow be the w[ater s]yde” (fol. 253r). Reminding Henry of all her past service, she notes that she has always been “glade to folfel your mynde”; now she expects he will reciprocate by allowing her to marry where “my mynd is” (fol. 253v). Despite the initial humble tone, by the end of the letter, Mary’s gentle words change to bold threats should he not accede to her request to marry Brandon. She reminds him that “yowr grace knokethe well that y ded mary for yowr pl[easure a] t thys tym and now I trost that you wel sowfor me to [marry as] me l[iketh fo]r to do.”59 Then, she pleads for him to: be good lord and brother to me for sere [Sire] and yf yowr grace wol have graunted me maryde yn onny place savyng wer as my mynd is I wel be ther wer as your grace nowr no nothyr shal have onny goye of me for I promise yowr grace yow shal her that I wel be yn some relygeious howse the wche I thyncke yowr grace wole be very sory of and yowr reme allso. (fol. 253v)

In effect Mary blackmails Henry: if he does not hold to his promise, as any good king and brother would, she will enter a convent. All of her language is couched in terms of Henry’s concern for her, yet her implied threat is strong; should she enter the convent, he would lose control over her dower and the chance for any benefits that might derive from her marriage, including the possibility of additional heirs to the throne. Mary even reminds Henry that the realm itself would disapprove of his forcing her to make such a choice. With this threat, perhaps Mary means that Henry’s reputation would be damaged if people knew that his pressure on her to marry drove her to a convent, or that the people have an interest in her happiness as well as the benefits and prestige her marriage might bring them. In this, Mary appeals to the popularity she possessed as a princess whom poets celebrated as bringing peace between England and France.

A Privy Marriage Apparently from the beginning of her widowhood Mary was fairly open about her desire to go home. Within weeks of Louis’s death, word began to spread of

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 101

2/18/2011 3:48:26 PM

102

The French Queen’s Letters

her preferences. On January 24, Piero Lando, the Venetian ambassador in Rome, told the Signory that Francis would not come to Italy that year because he could not afford both Mary’s dower and a military expedition. In that report, Lando specifically states that Mary “wished to return home to England,” showing that the news had reached as far as Italy.60 Probably only a few others besides Brandon, Henry, and Wolsey, however, knew that her ambitions aimed higher than simply returning. Initially Henry preferred not to commit to any particular course of action beyond getting Mary out of France, least of all to keeping the promise he had made her. Even if the young king felt inclined to grant his sister’s request, the possibilities for gain must have been tantalizing. Before sending the embassy to France, Henry therefore made Brandon swear a promise of his own: the duke would bring Mary back unwed.61 Once she was safe in England, Henry would consider allowing her to marry Brandon. Henry did not dream that his friend, whose ducal status depended wholly on the king’s favor, would disobey, nor does it seem that Brandon had any such plans when leaving England. And considering Henry’s gift of the confiscated de la Pole estates on February 1, Brandon was high in Henry’s graces; there was no reason for suspicion.62 From Henry’s perspective, encouraging Brandon might motivate the duke further in negotiations over Mary’s dower in order to prove worthy of royal favor. Provided Brandon brought Mary home, Henry would be able to decide at leisure which groom offered the best advantage to his royal reputation. For her part, Mary was disinclined merely to wait for Henry to arrange matters. Wolsey might have promised that “to the effucyon of my b[lood and spen] dyng of my goodes I shall nevyr forsake nor lev[e you],” yet that very language paradoxically inspires doubt. For while it must have been reassuring to know that Henry’s influential minister was her ally, on the other hand, his dire language suggests that there were no guarantees.63 Moreover, his caution not to wed without permission also implicitly extended to Brandon. If she wanted to attain her desires, according to Wolsey, the only choice was to trust Henry to keep his word. Whether Mary suspected Henry might break his promise from the start is unknowable. What is clear is that Mary knew from Catherine’s example that she would need to make an ally of the new French king whether or not Henry remained true. At the least, Mary would require Francis’s permission to leave France; at best, his support would be a powerful asset in her quest to wed Brandon. From his perspective, Francis most desired to keep Mary away from any HispanoBurgundian marriages; ideally she would wed a Frenchman such as Charles, Duke of Savoy, keeping her dower revenue—not to mention her lovely self—in France. Consequently, he dismissed her English retinue before he left for Rheims, ensuring that those surrounding her would be loyal to him.64 Francis’s visits to Mary’s chamber at the Hôtel de Cluny therefore occasioned more than simple courtesy; they became a set of negotiations over her future. Exactly what happened in those meetings is difficult to ascertain. Mary’s letter to Henry alleging Francis’s harassment was written to persuade her brother to act, making it hard to know how much pressure she truly felt or the exact nature of Francis’s suggestions. Her repeated expressions of disgust at the French king’s “fantesy and sutes” do suggest that he made some kind of personal proposition. Yet the only event on which all subsequent letters agree is that at some point, Mary confessed her love for Brandon and asked for Francis’s help achieving the

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 102

2/18/2011 3:48:27 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

103

marriage. In her letter to Henry she claims that she did so to forestall Francis’s importunity and to protect Brandon from any mistreatment. With Francis, she may have played on his fears of Henry’s duplicity, enlisting the French king’s assistance to guarantee a marriage that might not be ideal, but which was certainly far from the worst outcome from a French perspective. Moreover, if Mary framed her request within the discourse of chivalry, Francis would become the benevolent king, the patron of true love. Perhaps most of all, Francis would tweak Henry’s pride, scoring points in the newly established rivalry between the young kings. From Mary’s vantage point, playing Henry and Francis against one another might create the opportunity for her to exercise agency in the matter of her marriage. Apparently neither Brandon nor Henry nor Wolsey anticipated Mary acting on her own behalf in this fashion. When the embassy first met with Francis at Senlis, Brandon was startled by the king’s request for a private meeting. The next day Brandon reported to Wolsey that Francis had informed him of a rumor that the duke was to wed Mary; when Brandon protested he had no such ambition, Francis countered by giving Brandon a “ware-word,” a password that only Mary knew, and informed him that she had confessed all. Moreover, Francis had pledged his aid and promised that he himself and Mary would write with their own hands to Henry to alleviate any objections.65 Wolsey responded that Henry and he were pleased at Brandon’s discretion but urged the duke to obtain the promised letters swiftly to counter objections in England.66 In effect, Wolsey and Henry encouraged Brandon to continue his efforts without committing firmly to the prospective match. Mary was also cognizant that certain factions back home were deeply opposed to a Tudor–Brandon pairing. Sometime in late January/early February before the ambassadors’ arrival, two friars were sent to prejudice her against the duke.67 According to Mary, they convinced her that Henry’s council would never allow her to marry Brandon. But that wasn’t all. At the first opportunity she had to speak with Brandon alone, Mary warned him that the friars also alleged he and Wolsey both “medled with [the] develle,” that they performed witchcraft to influence Henry, even that Brandon’s sorcery caused a disease in his rival William Compton’s leg.68 Brandon promptly informed Wolsey of the slander while noting that the friars must have a “schoolmaster” in England, probably implicating the Duke of Norfolk. Moreover, he reported that Mary gave the friars short shrift, implying that her loyalties remained with himself and Wolsey. This accusation—preposterous to modern eyes—must have exacerbated Mary’s concerns about the antagonism she and Brandon would face in England did they not act preemptively in France. When the embassy met with Mary on Monday, February 5, the day after their arrival in Paris, they met a queen anxious about her brother’s intentions and eager to persuade him to keep his vow, who had already taken steps toward securing the support she would need. Letters written after March 5 relate an extraordinary private meeting that evening between Mary and Brandon in which she stated firmly her intentions to marry him. Both of these letters were carefully scripted in the wake of the couple’s confession of their secret marriage; therefore, it is worth waiting to consider them within the context of the events during which they were written. It suffices here to say that during that meeting, Mary and Brandon agreed to marry. The couple’s actions following that evening represent a coordinated effort to secure Henry’s permission. Once she heard of Brandon’s arrival, Mary

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 103

2/18/2011 3:48:27 PM

104

The French Queen’s Letters

had dismissed the French nobles and servants appointed to wait on her and re-engaged her English attendants, ensuring that her entourage was loyal to her.69 On February 11, she was able to leave official mourning, so she took steps to rejoin French society. On February 15, for instance, she watched Francis’s entry into Paris from a window at Cluny and then joined the formal procession to the palace for a banquet, riding with twenty of Brandon’s horsemen.70 Such actions positioned her to work with Francis, Claude, and Louise should that become necessary. She also continued her letter-writing campaign; on the same day as Francis’ entry, Mary wrote the letter about the French king’s importunity to engage her brother’s sympathy. Her letter with the convent threat also dates to this period, either late January or early February. Most of all, on February 9, she sent Henry a warrant stating, “[I] frely gewffe on to the sayde kyng my brother al seche plate & vesyle of clene gold” and “the choysse of syche spessyale jewelles” that Louis gave to her.71 That her methods of persuasion combined both rhetorical and monetary appeals surely attracted Henry’s attention. For his part, Brandon continued the business of his embassy, paying compliments to the new queen, talking with French nobles about Mary’s dower, the disposition of Tournai, which Francis wished to recover, and French involvement in Scottish affairs, as well as arranging a meeting between Henry and Francis. Such diligence would demonstrate his valuable service to Henry. At the same time Brandon supported Mary’s epistolary efforts, echoing her phrases that Francis had harassed her with proposals “non thyng to her honnar.”72 He wrote Wolsey to ask Henry for a loan of 2,000 pounds, observing that “all my money is gone and the queen and I both must make friends and they will not be gotten without money.”73 Brandon also appealed to the king’s friendship by sending the details of Francis’s tournament—one of Brandon and Henry’s favorite pastimes. His postscript asks Henry to write him some words of comfort and bids the king give Brandon’s regards to Catherine and “all me old fellows both men and women”; having evoked a sense of nostalgia, the duke begs that Henry not forget him, “for though my body be here my heart is with you.”74 In addition to calling on Henry’s affection, he affirms Mary’s monetary offers, promising that they are content for the king to choose what he wants.75 Both Mary and Brandon also worked to control the messages being exchanged on either side of the Channel. Remembering the importance of writing in one’s own hand, Mary deftly directed the content of Francis’s letters to Henry and vice versa, especially by reminding them to write themselves.76 The French king complied, using his own hand to note that Mary had specifically asked him to commend Brandon, and so he does, especially the honesty the duke has always shown.77 A second letter, still in Francis’s writing, notes that he writes at Mary’s urging to convey his full support for her marriage to Brandon and to ask Henry to accede to her request.78 For his part, Brandon also consulted with Wolsey about the best ways for Francis and Claude to write to Henry, noting that they are “ready to write with their own hands to the king my master after such form as I can think best, but I do put it off until I may have your advice.”79 The couple thus conducts a virtual chorus of letters from Francis, Claude, and Louise, each with its own part to play in persuading Henry to relent. Such epistolary activity did not go unnoticed. On February 20, Mercurin de Gattinare wrote Margaret of Austria that the French openly said that Brandon was to marry Mary with Henry’s approval, while two days later Spinelly informed Wolsey that word of the rumor had spread to the Low Countries, where they

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 104

2/18/2011 3:48:27 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

105

scoffed at the idea.80 Contrary to rumor, however, Henry had not yet firmly committed. Sometime after February 18, Wolsey wrote Brandon that Henry, with his Privy Council’s agreement, had written a letter in his own hand to the duke telling him to concentrate his efforts on recovering Mary’s dower and goods, without which Henry would not consent to the marriage. Suggesting that he did everything in his power to mollify Henry’s obduracy, Wolsey claimed the king believed that if he yielded too quickly Francis might think Henry and Brandon were in collusion and suspect the duke of dishonesty.81 It is impossible to know whether Henry’s letter represented the deciding factor, but Mary and Brandon resolved to wed secretly in France. In her letter confessing the deed, she claimed full responsibility for the decision, explaining that she told Brandon that unless he married her in four days, he would never have “ynyoyede [enjoyed] me.”82 When exactly the marriage took place is uncertain, but Hall records that it took place at the Hôtel de Cluny where Mary was living (582). After the couple’s return from France, Brandon and Wolsey sent Sir William Sidney to speak with Francis about covering up the details, but the record of their instructions survives. It emphasizes the secrecy of the marriage, reiterates that Mary alone instigated it, and mentions that the ceremony occurred secretly in Lent, which began on February 21 that year.83 That same document observes that only Francis knew about the marriage, although it does not specify whether he found out beforehand. In Brandon’s letter of apology to Henry, he notes that only ten people were present and specifically exonerates West and Wingfield, adding that Mary feared they would dissuade him.84 The marriage accomplished, what remained was how and when to tell Henry without provoking his retribution.

Confession and Contrition Like Shakespeare’s Cleopatra, Mary and Brandon may have felt, “Though it be honest, it is never good / to bring bad news. Give to a gracious message / An host of tongues, but let ill tidings tell / themselves when they be felt” (II.v.85–88). Therefore, they kept silent as long as they could, perhaps giving themselves time to break the news gently, perhaps hoping that Henry would consent, allowing them to wed openly and therefore preclude any need for confession. Yet the prospect of pregnancy, although a false alarm, spoiled any chance to delay. Anxiously writing Wolsey for advice on March 5, Brandon admitted that “the queen would never let me [be in] rest until I had granted her to be married [and] so to be plain with you I have married her heartily and have lain with her in so much I fear me lest that she be with child.”85 His postscript wishes that Henry need not be told, but leaves that decision in Wolsey’s hands. The same day, a desperate Brandon arranged to send Henry the Mirror of Naples, the fabulous diamond with a pearl that Louis had given Mary and which Henry so admired, promising that Henry would have his choice of the rest of her jewels once they obtained them.86 Such bribes, the couple must have hoped, would ameliorate Henry’s anger. As luck would have it, while waiting anxiously for a response, Mary and Brandon each received letters from Henry and Wolsey, respectively, on either March 5 or 6, since their responses, both dated March 6, survive. Both letters represent attempts to garner good will. Mary’s is in her own hand, but quite brief, merely thanking Henry for his letters and beseeching him to be good to her and her friends. Again she flatters her brother by placing all her trust in him and begs “that yt may layke yow with all convennynte delygt to sende for me that I may

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 105

2/18/2011 3:48:27 PM

106

The French Queen’s Letters

shortely se yowr grace wyche ys the thynge that I most dessyr yn thys world and I and all myn ys at yowr graces commandemente and playsayr.”87 She avoids mentioning the marriage; in the event that Wolsey kept Brandon’s confidence it would make no sense to disclose the secret early. What she does do is remind Henry of their close relationship in the hopes that he will remember their love when the news breaks. Brandon’s letter concentrates on business by reporting progress on the discussions over Tournai, but adds his hope that Wolsey will encourage Henry to leave him in charge of all negotiations so that Francis will continue to respect his authority on other matters.88 Apparently these letters had little effect; when it arrived, Wolsey’s response to their confession conveyed Henry’s rage at Brandon’s treachery. Professing disbelief at the news, Wolsey describes Henry’s reaction, saying that he “toke the same greviously and displesntly nat onely for that ye dorst presume to mary his Suster without hys knowleg but also for brekyng of yowr promysse made to his grace.’89 Furthermore, Henry felt betrayed that Brandon, “the man in all the world he lovyd and trustyd best,” and whom Henry brought up from nothing, would violate his trust, especially since Henry was willing, he claimed, to allow them to wed in England. For his own part, Wolsey rails at them, “Cursyd be the blynd affecionn and counsell that hath brought ye hereonto fferyng that such Sodenn and onavysyd dellyng shall have soden repentance.” He gives them advice but cautions them that “I wryt onto yow of myn owne hede without knowleg of any person lyvyng beyng in gret dout whether the same shall make your pease or no.” Wolsey then outlines a series of proposals, including a yearly sum of 4,000 pounds from Mary’s dower revenues, all the gold and jewels Louis gave her, any of the dowry money they might manage to recover, and an additional sum from Francis. Carefully distancing Henry from this shred of clemency, Wolsey warns Mary and Brandon to work diligently to recover Henry’s favor, concluding that “ye put yowr sylf in the gretest danger that ever man was in” (fol. 77v). Alternately scolding, lecturing, and warning, Wolsey uses all his rhetorical powers to urge the couple to act swiftly and effectively, lest worse consequences follow. In the immediate aftermath of Wolsey’s letter, both Brandon and Mary wrote careful letters to Henry explaining their actions and begging pardon, each in their own hands. Given how meticulously they had coordinated the letters from Francis, Claude, and Louise, it was natural for the couple to collude on their own letters’ content. Their letters frequently echo one another’s language; for instance, where Brandon writes that Francis’s harassment of Mary was “non thyng to her honnar,” Mary describes his suit as “not according with my honoure.”90 Their references to the content of one another’s letters also suggest close collaboration. For instance, Mary writes about her dower that “I thynck my lord of sowffolke wole write mor playndler to yowr grace than I do of thys maters.”91 It is therefore necessary to consider their letters as part of a concerted rhetorical effort calculated to appeal to Henry. Brandon’s letters after the confession proclaim his love and loyalty to Henry above all. In one letter, Brandon’s rhetorical stance is wholly submissive as he abases himself and invites Henry to imprison him or even cut off his head if ever he were untrue.92 He vows that he never acted against Henry’s wishes, saving in the “louf and [ma]rrag of the quyene,” and that he would rather “dy a schemfull dyth as yer dyd man” rather than betray or displease his king. Focusing almost entirely on Brandon and Henry’s relationship, this letter attempts to reestablish a bond of trust between them. Given the tangled court politics back in England,

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 106

2/18/2011 3:48:28 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

107

especially considering the lack of a male heir, it was vital that Brandon do so; Henry was suspicious of his nobles’ ambition, while the ranking lords guarded their power jealously. Discussing the ramifications of Henry’s dynastic situation, Kevin Sharpe notes that it was safer to marry daughters of the royal house abroad to avoid rivalries amongst the English nobles, sparking another civil war.93 His observations apply well to Mary’s situation; by wedding the king’s sister, Brandon’s ambition became suspect. By making a public show of profound submission, he attempted to allay Henry’s misgivings and to forestall any retribution that his rivals on the Privy Council might seek to wreak in his new vulnerability. Another letter elaborates on that theme by expressing Brandon’s fears of the machinations of his enemies. Positing Henry as his savior and begging the king to defend him, Brandon deliberately claims a rhetorical position of weakness to exalt Henry’s strength and underscore his own subordination.94 Rehearsing at length the events leading up to the marriage, this second letter, which has shaped many historical opinions of Mary, merits particularly close examination. Here, Brandon’s whole focus is on mollifying Henry, so after reiterating promises to give Henry money and jewels and protesting that he has represented English interests honorably in the matter of Tournai, he outlines the events in a way that would appeal to Henry’s mercy. He explains that on his arrival in France, Mary immediately told him that she loved him, but that the friars persuaded her they would never be allowed to wed. Worse, the “byest in franche” (“the best in France”) convinced her that if she went to England, she would be married in Flanders, that is, to Charles of Castile or Maximilian. Presumably Brandon refers to Francis or perhaps some of the other ranking nobles; by doing so, he may hope to arouse Henry’s ire against the French king. Moreover, Brandon painstakingly conveys that he knows Henry is incapable of such duplicity, but that since the treacherous French helped to mislead Mary, the duke had no choice but to break his promise to his king. It is in this context that Brandon explains that Mary claimed “sche had radar to be towrne in pysses [tha]n evar sche wold coum there and wyet yt wypeed [weeped] I newar save [saw] woman so wyepe” (fol. 186r). It is that line, more than any other, which has shaped depictions of Mary crying hysterically and asking for Brandon to save her. It is entirely possible that she did weep at the notion of another arranged marriage, particularly if it were Maximilian, who at fifty-six was even older than Louis. However, Brandon wrote this letter a month after the events he describes; his florid rhetoric needs to be understood within the context of his carefully calculated appeal to Henry’s chivalry. Furthermore, there are theological precedents that establish the power of a weeping woman. Although Mary was accustomed to comparisons between herself and the Virgin, the exigency of this situation required that she and her new husband invoke the Magdalene instead. Ultimately, Brandon needed an excuse that Henry would accept, and so Mary’s tears became the currency with which he hoped to buy the king’s forgiveness. Mary and Brandon seem to have agreed that their best chance of placating Henry’s wrath was to place full blame for the situation on Mary, trusting that his affection for her would mitigate any punishment. Accordingly, Brandon claims that he proposed writing Henry for permission again, whereupon she responded “that the king my brother is content and the french king both the one by his letters and the other by his words that I should have you I will have the time after my desire.”95 Otherwise, Mary would be convinced that Brandon was only there to lure her back to England, and she threatened, if “you will not be content to

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 107

2/18/2011 3:48:28 PM

108

The French Queen’s Letters

follow my mind look never after this day to have the proffer again.”96 Therefore, he decided it was better to ask Henry’s forgiveness than to lose her. Within the same letter, Brandon’s depiction of Mary changes radically from panic-stricken to resolute, yet the truth of either portrayal is subordinated to the image the couple wished to fashion. Here, Mary’s determination becomes the dominant theme, suggesting that Henry would understand his sister as a power worth taking seriously. For her part in calming Henry’s considerable ire, Mary makes a strong appeal to Henry’s emotions, while illustrating her understanding of English politics and her brother’s temperament. She is initially humble and contrite: “I wile not yn ony wyse denye bwt that I have offndyd yowr grace for the wyche I do pwt my selefe [self] most humbly in your clemens and marcy.”97 But after Mary makes the requisite apology, her rhetoric shifts gears as she assures Henry that she forced Brandon to take action: I knoke wele that I constrayned [hym] to breke syche promesses as [he] made yowr grace as wele for fere of leesynge of me as allso that I assertinned [ascertained/assured] hyme that by thyre entent [the Council’s] I wolde never [com]e yn to englonde and nowe that your grace knokythe the boothe offeneses of the wyche I have bene the only occasyone I most humbly & as your most sorrofowle swster Requereryng you to have compassyon apone us boothe and to pardon our offenses. (fol. 247r)

Given Henry’s affection, Mary sensibly deflects blame from the more vulnerable Brandon to herself, emphasizing that full responsibility for the marriage lies with her and calling on Henry’s fraternal compassion to mitigate his anger. The power dynamics shift here; she constrains Brandon, but humbly bows before Henry, emphasizing the narrow path a queen would need to negotiate when claiming authority. Although Mary carefully portrays Henry in a positive light throughout the course of the letters, casting Henry in such a role conflicts with her oft-repeated argument that she married Brandon because she was afraid, afraid that she was being deceived, afraid that she would never be allowed to marry as she chose, afraid that Henry would break his promises to her. It is impossible to reconcile such fear with her account of Henry as the good and loving brother, in whom “al my trowst ys yn . . . and so shale be dewring my lyfe.”98 Having placed Henry in the role of her benefactor, almost her savior, Mary needed a fall guy, as it were, and she found it in Henry’s Privy Council. She cast blame for her fears on a powerful group of Brandon’s noble rivals, especially the Duke of Norfolk, who resented the upstart Brandon’s relationship with Henry. Accordingly, she tells Henry that she preferred to “put me yn yowr marcy acomplyschyng the maryage thanne to put me yn t[o the o]rder of yowr concell.” Above all, she assures him, she did not act so swiftly out of any “synswale apendite, [sensual appetite],” but out of fear that Henry’s council “wolde never concente to the maryge betewn [my] sayde lord and me.”99 Such characterization preserves Henry’s status as the reasonable, trustworthy brother—and her own as virtuous sister—while simultaneously suggesting he not be ruled by his councilors but instead act independently. In effect, she creates a situation in which Henry would act from a position of even greater power; granting mercy to the couple against the advice of his Council would demonstrate the strength of Henry’s rule.

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 108

2/18/2011 3:48:28 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

109

Mary’s insistence that her motives are not sexual represents a particularly important part of her self-fashioning. Having violated the conventional dictates of obedience, and arguably, silence, it was vital that she attend to her reputation by making certain no one questioned her chastity. Ironically, the romantic portrayals of Mary since her death have placed the emphasis back on her desires. Given that it was a fear of pregnancy that led to the couple divulging their secret marriage, not to mention Brandon’s characterization that he had lain with her “so much,” clearly Mary and Brandon enthusiastically engaged in sexual activity. But to dwell on that in the sixteenth century would have been counterproductive. Mary needed her choice of Brandon to seem rational, not born out of love or lust. Mary also emphasizes the letter’s public/private dimension, asking Henry for both private comfort and public demonstration when she begs him to write to her and Brandon. Since all communication was being funneled through Wolsey, the act of writing on Henry’s own part might indicate his forgiveness, or at the least allow Mary to hope for it, especially since Henry notoriously detested the chore of putting ink to paper.100 Linking Henry’s compassion to his letters and pleading for both, she solicits him “as yowr most [sorro]fowle swstere Requereryng [yo]u to have compassyon apone [us] boothe and to pardon owr off[ens]es and that yt towele play[se you]r grace to wryt to me & [m]y Lord of sowffelke sowme [comfor] ttabele wordes for yt sh[ould be the g]rettyst comforte for u[s both]” (fol. 247r). Such constant association of letters with comfort underscores the authority of the letter, when the act of writing itself symbolizes renewed affection and pardon. Deprived of Henry’s letters, Mary and Brandon are denied the king’s “presence” in any form. In an age where access to the monarch equals power, such alienation signals the depth of their fall from grace. If a letter should arrive, its very existence would invoke the presence of the king, and thus amount to absolution. In this way, the letter itself acts as a public performance; when Mary implores Henry to write to her, she is aware of this epistolary theatricality.

The Continued Exercise of Queenship The shifting power dynamics in France after Louis’s death led the Venetian government to send new orders regarding the embassies to England and France; on February 1, they wrote their ambassadors Sebastian Giustinian and Piero Pasqualigo to instruct them to pay their respects to Francis, Claude, and Louise and to offer Mary their condolences. However, the presents previously intended for Mary were to be retained until further notice, and the ambassadors charged with discovering which courtiers would prove influential under Francis.101 In March, Hieronimo Triulzi, another Italian at the French court, commented that Mary was expecting a gift and would receive the ambassadors well, but Pasqualigo responded there was no such present and then tactfully shifted to another topic.102 This episode indicates the extended repercussions stemming from the change in Mary’s circumstances after Louis’s death. She still merited courtesy, but with her marital status unresolved, not necessarily bribery. Although her influence might be dwindling in France, nonetheless Mary still possessed clout through her relationship with Henry. On April 11, the Queen of Naples, Isabella del Balzo, wrote Mary to ask her to intercede on behalf of her son Ferdinand, who was being held prisoner in Spain.103 Isabella’s husband Frederick had lost his throne to Ferdinand and Louis, accepted a pension, and settled in Anjou. But after his death in 1504, Isabella and her four children were forced to

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 109

2/18/2011 3:48:28 PM

110

The French Queen’s Letters

live nomadically, traveling from court to court seeking shelter from relatives. After explaining that Mary’s kindhearted treatment of her son Alfonso inspired her to write, Isabella flattered Mary by noting that the Tudor house had always been celebrated for its piety. Adding her sympathy for Louis’s death, Isabella begged that Mary would write Henry to ask his assistance for her son. Although Isabella was clearly desperate, nonetheless her plea makes it clear that Mary was still viewed as a queen worth soliciting. Moreover, the change in her circumstances did not prevent Mary from continuing to engage in certain acts of queenship, particularly on behalf of her servants. Throughout the month of February, three different orders of payment survive: on the twelfth, 50 ecus d’or au soleil to Richard Desnoues, one of her ushers, for loyal service; on the twenty-third, 100 ecus d’or au soleil to Anne de Vallée, one of her ladies, as reward on the occasion of her marriage; and on the twenty-seventh, 30 livres to Michelle Rouel, her laundress, for performing her duties without payment one month.104 More than simple gifts of money, Mary also attempted to arrange patronage for her people. On February 18, she wrote separate letters to Henry and Wolsey complaining that her almoner, Dr. James Denton, had been passed over for a prebend (an endowment of land or money) at St. Stephen’s Church that Wolsey had previously promised him.105 The letter to Henry simply explains the situation and asks him to rectify it, but the letter to Wolsey is much more involved, including earnest thanks for Wolsey’s efforts on her behalf throughout their relationship. Furthermore, she promises that if his appointee will resign, she will help the man to a much better promotion as well as the next available prebend. By spending more effort on the letter to Wolsey, Mary reveals she understands the workings of the court; Henry might mention the issue to Wolsey, but it is more likely the archbishop would have the final determination. Even after the news of the secret marriage broke, Mary still engaged in acts of patronage. On April 3, she wrote Wolsey requesting that her secretary-tutor John Palsgrave receive a benefice that had opened up in England.106 Since early March Wolsey had been communicating Henry’s anger, yet Mary’s tone was no different than in her letter to Wolsey written the previous November also asking patronage for Palsgrave. Focusing on the service Palsgave has done her in the past, Mary emphasizes that Wolsey should do the favor for Mary’s sake, “Beseching you my lord at myne instaunce and for my sake to be so good lord unto my servant Johnn palgrave maister of Arte Whiche hath doon unto me right good and acceptable service.” Even though Mary is in disgrace she trusts that Wolsey will continue to act at her behest. In so doing she lays claim to the influence she should possess as Henry’s sister and as the queen dowager of France; making the request at this time effectively implies that her disgrace is only temporary and that exchanging favors with her is in Wolsey’s future interest. Mary was aware of the theatre of politics: being seen to act as usual might lessen the appearance of scandal.

Negotiating Forgiveness “Pleus sale que royne,” or “more dirty than queenly.” This acidic little comment was inscribed by Francis on a sketch of Mary in the Album d’Aix.107 The French king was bitter about the outcome of the negotiations for Mary’s dower, particularly the matter of the Mirror of Naples, which Mary and Brandon had sent to Henry in March without Francis’s permission. The disposition of the fabulous

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 110

2/18/2011 3:48:28 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

111

diamond was only one of several matters of contention. For instance, although the marriage contract specified that Mary was to have the use of all household goods customarily reserved for a queen dowager, the French asserted that such property was to remain in France, not sent abroad.108 Two, although the French were required to pay Mary’s travel expenses, the English asked for reimbursement so exorbitant the French refused to credit their seriousness.109 Most of all, Francis contested Mary’s right to the gold and jewels Louis had given her, claiming that they were a gift to the queen of France and therefore should remain in France. The English countered that Louis had given them to Mary, who had a right to keep them. If that were so, argued Francis, she should also be responsible for part of the debts Louis incurred while they were married.110 Both sides made impossible demands of each other. Brandon’s position was a difficult one; Wolsey had made it clear that the only way to win Henry’s forgiveness was to bring back substantial wealth from France, yet despite the archbishop’s admonitions, the duke and his fellow ambassadors realized they would need to act more reasonably. In one frustrated letter to Wolsey, they added a postscript explaining that if they obtained the full sum Henry desired for Mary’s travel money, then they could not in fairness ask for all the goods that that money had bought; “And sithens it is likely that [we] shall commune with reasonable men we would be r[ather] loth to demand anything out of reason.”111 No matter how equitable they were, however, the loss of the Mirror of Naples so angered Francis that he threatened not to allow Mary any other jewels or gold plate. Brandon was so alarmed at this threat he attempted to convince Wolsey to send the diamond back (to no avail). Finally, they compromised; Mary was allowed to keep half the jewels and gold, provided that she acknowledge them as a gift from Francis, not as property she was entitled to own.112 There is little evidence Mary was involved in the actual negotiations; rather, she seemed to focus her efforts on persuading Henry to accept the proposed terms. In another of her undated letters, she sends him an update affirming once more that he shall have the jewels and plate, yet noting “yt tys nat so wele [as] I wold yt had bene for thyr [i]s moche styckkyng thyr at.”113 Brandon will tell him more, she notes, as she attempts to lower his expectations. Changing the topic rapidly, Mary reports that Francis has told her that he has a “specyall mynd to ha[ve] peace with yowr gra[ce be]fore anye prynce cry[stendom]” (fol. 251v). In this fashion, Mary subtly suggests that while she might not bring Henry as much wealth as he hoped, she is working to bring him a better gift: continued peace. Moreover, she notes proudly, “I have obtaynede as myc[h] honowre in thys Raym [as] was possybele to any woma[n to] have” and urges him to permit her to come home. Her careful phrasing reminds him what fame she will bring back to ornament his court, enhancing its reputation for magnificence in turn. Mary also made certain to thank Wolsey for his efforts on their behalf, offering him the only coin that interested him: her loyalty. Throughout these months, Wolsey was in a comfortable position; by urging Mary and Brandon to win Henry as much money as possible, he pleased the king. By interceding for the couple with Henry, he earned their gratitude. Mary wished to confirm their informal alliance, so she wrote to him on March 22 pledging her allegiance in return. Thanking him effusively for his efforts and charges him to continue, she vows “[to the] uttermost of owr po[wer we shal]l be allwes Redy to sho[w] fayfthe fowle kend[ness as knoweth]e owr lord.”114 This letter promising her allegiance is the only letter Mary ever wrote Wolsey in her own hand, marking its significance.

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 111

2/18/2011 3:48:29 PM

112

The French Queen’s Letters

As the details were ironed out, Mary and Brandon had one additional concern; if she was pregnant, they wanted to ensure that their firstborn had no taint of illegitimacy. On March 12, Brandon therefore asked Wolsey whether Francis and Louise should write again in behalf of an public marriage, “seyng that thes prywy marage es doune, and that I thynke non oddarwyes bout that sche es wyet chyeld.”115 Louise did write that same day urging Henry to allow them to wed while commending Brandon’s honesty and loyalty.116 On Saturday, March 31, Mary and Brandon arranged a second, slightly more open ceremony. Louise records the occasion in her diary, noting rather smugly that Brandon was a “man of low condition.”117 Nonetheless, the marriage was officially accomplished. On April 3, when ambassadors asked Francis when Mary might leave, he appointed the Saturday after the first Sunday after Easter.118 In the end, Mary left slightly earlier: Monday, April 16. Before doing so, she signed three different receipts, two on April 14 at Cluny for 20,000 crowns in traveling expenses and 200,000 crowns for her dowry, then another on April 16 for the Mirror of Naples, as well as twenty other diamonds and a selection of pearls, emeralds, and rubies.119 There would continue to be disputes over monies or goods withheld in the future, but sufficient agreement had been reached to allow the couple to return. Matters between Mary and Henry, however, were far from settled. As Mary and Brandon traveled toward the coast, they were aware that Henry’s forgiveness had yet to be granted. Moreover, they knew that their future, especially Brandon’s, relied on Henry’s clemency. On April 22, writing from Montreuil, Brandon lays out the situation bleakly: everyone on the Privy Council save Wolsey is determined to see him “be put to death or be put in prison and so to be destroyed alive.”120 Being thus forsaken troubles him, he claims, because he always helped them through difficulties, but now must face their malice. Betrayed and alone, he claims, he abases himself before Henry, “my sovereign lord and master and he that has brought me up of nothing,” and promises to submit to whatever punishment Henry desires.121 In Henry’s hands, Brandon proclaims, he need not fear “the malice of them for I know your grace of such nature it can not be in their power to cause you to destroy me for their malice, but what punishment so ever I have I shall thank God and your grace of it and think it well deserve.”122 Brandon cleverly paints Henry into a rhetorical corner; he will submit to any sentence, trusting that Henry is of a nobler mind than his Council, but to justify that picture, Henry must be merciful in his judgment. The letter invites Henry to be the gracious monarch. What threat Mary personally faced was probably small; it would have been counterproductive for Henry to punish her physically. But what fate Brandon awaited was unknown, and his punishment would necessarily affect her. Hindsight makes it seem difficult to believe that after all the negotiations the penalty would be more than financial. Nonetheless, looking at Mary and Brandon’s letters, they never hesitate to promise money to appease Henry, yet they constantly ask for his pardon, suggesting their fear that wealth would not suffice. Wolsey’s warnings of danger might be a rhetorical move to pressure them into asking for more money from the French or a genuine acknowledgment of their real jeopardy or even both together. An older Henry, after all, did not scruple to execute two wives when it suited him. Moreover, even if Henry chose a monetary punishment, he could reduce them to penury. Mary’s next letter, the final one written in France, therefore became a particularly important document. The couple had reached Calais on April 30, where they

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 112

2/18/2011 3:48:29 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

113

waited for word of Henry’s forgiveness. There Mary worked to create a formal defense of their actions, a letter that survives only as a draft. Because this letter was so vital, Mary and Wolsey collaborated in its writing. Waiting in Calais, Mary dictated the first draft to Wolsey’s secretary Brian Tuke, who double spaced each line to leave room for Wolsey’s alterations; Tuke then sailed back across the Channel to Dover where Wolsey suggested several changes.123 Tuke would then have made a fair copy for Mary’s signature and delivery to the king. Such practice was common; extant letter drafts from the early modern period reveal that writers often sought assistance from others in framing their arguments, especially when the letters concerned sensitive matters.124 Given that this letter would present her case to the world, it was natural for Mary to seek advice in its composition, and it was in Wolsey’s interest to serve Mary in this capacity. Helping to smooth over the difficulties between the couple and Henry would leave them further indebted to him in the future and affirm his power as Henry’s chief advisor. On the other hand, Mary knew that Wolsey’s primary goal was to please Henry, and therefore this draft became a negotiation between Mary and Wolsey setting the terms of her return. By working with the archbishop, Mary sought to fashion a self that would be acceptable to Henry and the rest of his Council. James Daybell, who has studied marginalia on drafts of other women’s letters, notes that such documents reveal the extent to which “ ‘female’ postures could be manipulated by men or women, and the ways in which what appears ‘personal’ or intimate is in fact mediated.”125 Mary’s rhetoric is always tempered by her desire to persuade. The draft letter reveals Mary’s awareness of a broader audience as she rehearses the full matter of her marriage much more formally. Keeping Henry’s Council in mind, she carefully details the circumstances of her first marriage, reminding all her readers of Louis’s age and decrepitude: “Though I understode that he was verray aged and sikely [sickly] yet for the advauncement of the said peax [peace], and for the furtheraunce of your causes, I was contented to conforme my self to your said mocionn” (fol. 79r). In this fashion Mary reminds Henry and his Council that she has sacrificed herself for their cause, precisely as her sisterly duty required. She then relates the occasion of Henry’s promise to her, that if “I shulde fortune to survive the said late king I mygt with your good wil marye my self at my libertie.” Mary argues that she otherwise would never have “graunted to” the first marriage, a point Wolsey helps her emphasize by adding the phrase “as at the same tyme I shewed unto you more at large.” Moreover, she notes that Henry is aware that she has always had a mind to Brandon, whom he himself has favored until this time. Given that Henry knew full well his promise, Mary states the terms explicitly here for the benefit of her overhearers. In his corrections, Wolsey suggests to Mary that she foreground the political situation at the time of her marriage to Louis. For instance, the letter’s second sentence initially states, “Derrest brother I doubte not but ye have in your good remembrans that at suche tyme as ye first moved me to mariage Ser my lorde and late husband kyng loys of fraunce whose soule our lorde have in his mercy shewing unto me the grete weale of peax whiche shulde ensue of the same.” Wolsey alters this to emphasize Henry’s debt to Mary, “Derrest brother I doubte not but ye have in your good remembrans that where as for the good of peax and for the furtherance of your affayres ye moved me to marye wt my lorde and late husband king loys of fraunce whose soule god pardon” (fol. 79r). He even suggests repeating the phrase, “for the furtheraunce of your causes” in the next line, enabling Mary to remind Henry that her first marriage was for his sake, not her own.

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 113

2/18/2011 3:48:29 PM

114

The French Queen’s Letters

Wolsey also takes pains to add more phrases praising and exonerating Brandon. After Mary reminds Henry of his promise to let her marry where she pleases, Wolsey adds the line, “remembering the grete vertues whiche I have seen and perceyved heretofore in my lorde of Suffolk to whom I have always ben of good mynde as ye wel knowe” (fol. 79r). Here, it is Henry, of course, whom Wolsey wishes to remind of Brandon’s great virtues. Similarly, toward the end of the letter, where Mary focuses on herself and Henry’s relationship, “Trusting verailly [verily] that in fulfilling of your said promyse to me made ye wol shewe yor brotherly love affeccion and good mynde to me in this bihalf whiche to here of I abide wt most desire,” Wolsey interjects, “and not to be myscontented with my said lorde of Suffolk whom of myn inwarde good mynde and affeccion to hym I have in maner enforced to be aggreable to the same without any request by hym made” (fol. 79v). Wolsey recognizes Brandon’s comparatively greater danger and works continually to protect him, ensuring the duke’s continued gratitude. At the same time, Wolsey frequently tones down the force of Mary’s arguments that insist on her independence and her status as Henry’s sister. At the very beginning, he reduces her opening greeting, “in most tender and loving maner possible” to “in most humble maner,” shifting Mary to the subordinate position. Then, when she argues that she was entitled to act without consulting Henry, that is, “withoute any sute,” he cuts that phrase, modifying her insistence on her autonomy (fol. 79r). Later in the letter, Mary argues: I cann love [Brandon] before al other and upon hym I am perfitely set my mynde setled and determyned And upon the good comforte whiche I have that ye wol observe your promyse, I shal playnly certifie you that of your said promyse the matir is so ferre forthe that for no cause erthely I wol varye or chaunge from the same. And of me and of mynn ownn towardnes and mynde onely hathe it proceded. (fol. 79r)

Crossing out Mary’s words and substituting new phrases above them, Wolsey severely abbreviates this passage to read: “And to be playn with your grace I have so bounde my self unto him that for no cause erthely I wol or may varye or chaunge from the same.” Mary’s language testifies to her resolve not only to remain married to Brandon but also to maintain her responsibility for the union, while Wolsey’s suggestions mitigate the strength of her words, omitting both her declarations of love for Brandon and her trust that Henry will forego his anger. Because the final draft of Mary’s letter does not survive, we cannot know how many of Wolsey’s changes she ultimately incorporated into the letter. If she did choose his version, it would be because she felt this stance would be the most persuasive. Yet it is important to note that even in this altered draft Mary’s determination remains clear. The climax of Mary’s appeal in this letter reveals the extent of her knowledge of her brother’s motivations and the most important part of her negotiations with Wolsey. Expressing her confidence in Henry’s love for her, Mary tells him that she has entered his jurisdiction in Calais, where she waits for his word. She promises him “al the hoole dote [dowry] whiche I have founde the meanes to recover as largely as it was delyvered with me” and also “the half of al suche plate of gold and Juelx [jewels]” she received from Louis as well as a yearly sum from her French dower revenues (fol. 79v). Mary’s plea thus appeals to Henry’s

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 114

2/18/2011 3:48:30 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

115

love and his integrity, but above all, to his pockets. Nevertheless, her offer did not suffice, for Wolsey altered the letter from half to all the gold and jewels. This negotiation carried major implications; jewelry was a crucial element of the display of magnificence, important not just for greed or vanity. By extension, giving them to Henry meant more than simple loss of wealth, but a lessening of Mary’s political consequence. Maria Hayward suggests that this is part of Henry’s intent, pointing out that by confiscating the jewels, Henry “ensured that only he had access to jewels of this quality,” thereby enhancing his majesty at the expense of his sister.126 Although the final draft of the letter is not extant, Mary seems to have won a few concessions in the end, since she was able to retain some of the jewels and other luxuries Louis gave to her.127 Ultimately, it was this letter (and promise) that finally moved Henry to forgiveness, since the couple was invited to return to England to celebrate their wedding publicly. In this fashion Mary’s letters reveal her ability to influence her brother through appeals to his affection, politics, practicality, reputation, and above all, to his greed. The final negotiations took place face to face. On May 2, Mary and Brandon sailed for Dover and then went with Wolsey to Birling, where they met with Henry to settle the details of the financial penalty Henry planned to impose.128 According to a description of the events Mary, Brandon, and Wolsey assembled for Francis’s benefit, Henry met her affectionately, “rejoicing greatly in her honourable return, and great prosperity.”129 Although they were deliberately crafting a positive depiction, Henry had every reason to rejoice, given the financial arrangements he was about to make. In the end, she and Brandon signed documents agreeing to pay Henry 1,000 pounds every six months until the sum of 24,000 pounds was paid (an amount that reflected repayment of costs for her outfitting and a loan to Brandon of 5,000 pounds), as well as the entire refund of her dowry, and the gold and jewels from Louis. In addition, Brandon was required to relinquish the wardship of Lady Elizabeth Grey.130 Compared to the punishment they might have suffered, they probably counted themselves fortunate, but nonetheless the sum represented a significant portion of her dower revenue. Its loss would prevent them from making extravagant displays at court that might challenge Henry; the penalty therefore carried both fiscal and political ramifications. Although they had already been married twice, Mary and Brandon opted to arrange one more public celebration in England, ensuring there would be no scandal to taint their children’s legitimacy. On May 13, at Greenwich, they held a third ceremony, this time publishing the banns in advance and creating official records of the event. Henry, Catherine, and many other nobles were present. At the same time, they also took steps to quiet any rumors about the earlier occasions by sending William Sidney with instructions to ask Francis to keep the first two weddings secret, specifically citing their desire to avoid damaging Mary and Henry’s honor, as well as to protect their offspring.131 Even in that document, they took pains to exonerate Brandon, noting that the marriage in France “proceeded entirely on her own wish” (103). Their meticulous crafting of events thus extended to oral conversation as well as written documents.

Political Implications On February 9, 1515, Louis Maroton, Emperor Maximilian’s secretary, wrote Margaret of Austria that when his employer received the portrait of Mary she

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 115

2/18/2011 3:48:30 PM

116

The French Queen’s Letters

had sent, he spent a half an hour alone in his room staring at it, then called his secretary, who had seen the young queen, to ask if the painting was a good likeness. Informed that it was, he ordered Maroton to tell Margaret to “urge the king of England to get her back into his hands . . . .if she is married in France and [Henry] should die without heirs, it would place his realm in great hazard.”132 Here Maximilian identified immediately one of the primary considerations in Mary’s second marriage: the English crown. A single accident on the jousting field could leave England without a king, potentially bringing his sister and her husband to the throne. Further complicating the issue, already there were murmurings that Henry might seek a divorce; Vetor Lippomano wrote to Rome on August 28, 1514, that there was a rumor that Henry sought to repudiate his marriage to Catherine on grounds of barrenness.133 History reveals that such speculation was premature, yet both these examples highlight Mary’s importance to the English succession; in the event that Catherine did not give Henry a son, any of Mary’s children (or even Mary herself ) could conceivably be designated Henry’s heir. Such ramifications make Mary’s choice of Brandon all the more significant. With her elder sister Margaret in Scotland, the idea of returning home to help produce English princes might not have been far from Mary’s mind. When she gave birth to a son—named Henry after his uncle—the English court recognized his potential status through a sumptuous christening and lavish gifts presented to him.134 Her son’s important relationship to the crown was further underlined when King Henry created him Earl of Lincoln on the same day that the king’s illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy was made Duke of Richmond and Somerset and his daughter Princess Mary was given her own household, making her the de facto princess of Wales.135 Moreover, Henry’s will would later stipulate that after his children and their heirs, the crown should follow the line of Mary the French queen rather than that of the Scottish Stuarts, thus further justifying Mary’s decision to wed Brandon.136 In spring of 1515, however, most of Mary’s contemporaries were not so sanguine about her decision. An English ambassador to the Low Countries, Dr. Richard Sampson, wrote Wolsey horrified at the suggestion that Mary was to marry Brandon. Convinced the rumor was created by the French to discredit Mary and England, Sampson proclaims that her marriage “ys now the grette[st] in Christondom, [by which] grett streynth schuld fortown to Inglond.”137 On the same day, Spinelly also wrote Wolsey that Henry’s supporters in the Low Countries were distressed by the gossip, noting in consternation that bets were being placed about the truth of the rumor.138 As the dowager-queen of France, still young, beautiful, and rich, Mary could expect to wed brilliantly, so to “waste” herself on an English duke shocked many people throughout Europe. Conventional wisdom might dictate her best match lay elsewhere, yet that doesn’t mean that Mary’s marriage to Brandon was somehow apolitical, wrong, or even simply romantic. Mary understood court politics well; she was hardly ignorant of the dangers she faced in choosing her own husband, nor, in light of her previous experiences with political marriage, would she have failed to realize the wide-ranging political implications of her decision to marry an English nobleman. In returning to England, she placed herself in excellent position to claim the throne should need arise. Even barring such an event, in marrying Brandon, Mary maintained the current peace with France. Because Brandon and Wolsey were proponents of the French alliance, her new husband posed no threat to relations across the channel. By refusing to wed any of the other candidates for her hand,

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 116

2/18/2011 3:48:30 PM

Marrying Where “my mynd is”

117

Mary prevented an Anglo-Burgundian or Anglo- Spanish alliance. In essence, she refused to be the means of instigating yet another policy shift in English relations with Europe. As the dowager queen of France, Mary encouraged England’s diplomatic connection to France to remain strong, thus continuing to play her role as peacemaker. Moreover, Mary’s stay in France only enhanced her reputation for grace, beauty, and charm. Given the early modern emphasis on spectacle and magnificence, Mary knew that she would bring a certain cultural cachet back to England. Throughout her youth, she had been Henry’s partner in all courtly entertainments, adding her imprimatur to the dances, masques, banquets, and other pastimes. Given Catherine’s quieter nature, Mary had assumed many of the duties of first lady of the English court. Her absence would have been felt; in the 1514 Christmas festivities described by Hall, no woman was singled out for her participation. Catherine was present, but a spectator as usual, who “hartely thanked the kynges grace for her goodly pastyme, and kyssed hym” (580). Henry and Catherine would have missed their sister personally, but also because her gaiety enhanced the reputation of the court, and by extension, its cultural and political capital. Brandon, whose prowess in the joust was respected throughout Europe, was a similar asset. But more than that, he was a steadfast friend to Henry, and for a monarch whose father had claimed the crown largely by conquest and whose command of his subjects was occasionally still contested, being able to rely on the loyalty of one of his dukes was no minor gift. By choosing Brandon, Mary ensured that Henry would have loyal partisans at the highest level of his court. Although it is true that Brandon owed his dukedom to Henry in the first place, marrying the king’s sister guaranteed a new level of commitment. In this fashion, Mary’s second marriage added further stability to Henry’s reign. By choosing an English lord, Mary also added to Henry’s wealth. Marrying domestically forestalled the need for another huge outlay of capital outfitting Mary for another state match. Even if some of the household goods and clothes were recycled, they would have needed expensive alteration to tailor them to a new husband’s court fashion. Furthermore, Mary’s dower revenues would provide yearly income. Hall notes that although some of the English begrudged the opportunity to ally with Charles of Castile, “the wisest sorte was content, considering that if she had ben maryed agayn out of the realm, she should have caried much riches with her, & now she brought every yere into the realme, ix. or x. M. markes” (582). That the money came from French pockets only enhanced English satisfaction. Given that her first marriage helped to end a war, it is easy to dismiss Mary’s second choice as insignificant, especially given that one of her motives was love. Yet marrying for love does not negate the politics involved in Mary’s choosing Brandon. Of course, measured by contemporary standards, in the aftermath of a feminist revolution that proclaimed the personal as political, it is easy to define Mary’s assertion of agency as a political act. What is also significant is that even by early modern standards, her marriage was still a political act, one touching on matters of finance, diplomacy, intrigue, the succession, and more. Recognizing that fact—and studying the part Mary’s letters played in crafting her authority— adds further nuance to our understanding of the practice of queenship and the exercise of power in the sixteenth century.

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 117

2/18/2011 3:48:30 PM

9780230620308_05_ch03.indd 118

2/18/2011 3:48:30 PM

CHAPTER 4

A LWAYS THE FRENCH QUEEN: IDENTITY POLITICS

Excerpt from a sermon by John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, printed by William Rastell1: To se thre ryght excellent Quenes at ones togider, and of thre great realmes. That one, the noble Quene our mastresse, the very exampler of vertue and noblenesse to all women. And the Frenche Quene. And the thyrde Quene Mary, somtyme wyfe unto Lowys Frenche kynge, syster to our sovereygne lorde, a ryght excellent and fayre Lady . . . suche daunsynges, suche armonyes, suche dalyaunce, and so many pleasaunt pastymes, so curyouse howses and buyldynges, so precyously apparayled, suche costely welfare of dyners, souppers, and bankettys, so delycate wynes, soo precyouse meatys, suche and soo many noble men of armes, soo ryche and goodly tentys, suche Justynges, suche tourneys, and suche feates of warre. These assuredly were wonderfull syghtes as for this worlde / and as moche as hath ben redde of in many yeres done, or in any Cronycles or Hystoryes here tofore wryten, and as great as mennes wyttes and studyes coulde devyse and ymagyn for that season.

John Fisher’s initial enthusiasm in describing the events that took place at the Field of Cloth of Gold was undercut by his sermon’s insistence on the transitory nature of earthly joys, together with eloquent examples of how weather might ruin a joust or wind blow down an elaborate tent.2 Nevertheless, his opening lines testify to Mary’s continuing importance as a source of national pride. Here Mary, Catherine, and Claude are celebrated as one of the wondrous sights beheld at the extravagant spectacle staged by Henry and Francis at their meeting in 1520. But where Queen Claude of France was barely named, both Catherine and Mary are singled out, Mary noted as Louis’s queen, Henry’s sister, and “excellent and fayre” in her own right (fol. A2r). Her beauty and her quality are imagined as a part of an epic narrative that surpasses any such event in history. Fisher’s praise illustrates how Mary’s title “queen of France” becomes a lifelong source of status, one that shaped people’s conceptions of her and provided a continuing source of authority. Accounts of Mary’s life often end abruptly after Mary and Brandon’s homecoming, concluding with some version of “and they lived happily ever after.” In fairness to those stories, when the couple first returned to England, few people were certain how much authority or influence they would possess. Badoer and Giustinian, the Venetian ambassadors in England, even hesitated to offer congratulations to Henry or the bride and groom.3 It was some three months later, on August 5—only after the couple’s participation in courtly events helped signify Henry’s full pardon—that the ambassadors told Brandon in Latin that the

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 119

2/18/2011 3:50:40 PM

120

The French Queen’s Letters

Signory commended “his most felicitous and auspicious marriage to the most serene Maria, Dowager of France, and alliance with this most serene King. 4 Their felicitations acknowledge Mary’s dual status as both dowager French queen and Henry’s sister, showing how these combined roles guaranteed her continued consideration as a player in court politics. It is altogether too easy to misread the role of the dowager queen as merely honorary, emblematic of bygone splendor. Yet Badoer and Giustinian note Brandon’s “glorious” fortune in marrying a dowager queen, suggesting that the early modern courtier perceived Mary as a figure who could still provide access to power.5 Other archival records show that Mary remained a figure of consequence throughout her life. Such evidence demonstrates how important it is to resist a historical fallacy that creates a binary of the married and influential queen versus widowed and lonely dowager. Mary’s exercise of power would be more limited in scope, yet such limits do not negate the continued existence of authority. Although a romanticized ending might have its attractions, studying her entire life offers a different sort of narrative, one compelling for what it reveals about women’s agency and activity. Given that the Oxford English Dictionary even defines the term “dowager” by citing John Palsgrave’s 1530 reference to Mary— “the douagier of France”—as the word’s first use in print, it is fitting to consider how the latter events of Mary’s life can redefine our concepts of queenship and power in the sixteenth century. Whether participating in courtly entertainments, corresponding with French nobles, or attending diplomatic affairs such as the Field of Cloth of Gold, Mary continued to play a part in the visual and rhetorical spectacles of the English court. Throughout the years, Mary also maintained a network of epistolary relationships, writing letters to Henry, Wolsey, Francis, and even her old friend Jane Popincourt, sometimes calling on them for patronage, sometimes offering congratulations, and other times simply preserving an open channel she could use to ask for future favors. At all times Mary employed her title, “the French queen,” as a sign of her status. Yet examining Mary’s actions—from pleading for clemency for the 1517 May Day rebels to intervening on behalf of her sister Margaret to receiving French ambassadors asking her support after Francis’s capture at Pavia—reveals that this was no mere title, nor simply a source of vanity. Rather it was a sign that Mary continued to embrace the responsibilities expected of a queen: peacemaker, intercessor, mediator, and more. The title of dowager queen thus carried a measure of influence that Mary drew on throughout her life, enhancing her authority to act and increasing the importance of her presence in courtly affairs.

Dealing with Debt In Selling the Tudor Monarchy, Kevin Sharpe argues persuasively that amongst the chorus of voices engaged in disseminating royal images of Henry VIII, we must include the rhetoric of official documents and proclamations, particularly for how carefully they attempt to forge strong relationships between the king and his subjects by using language of affection that implies Henry’s paternal care. He also emphasizes that the variety of media employed, coupled with the different creators and audiences, ensured that “the many texts that presented Henry VIII to his subjects could . . . be read against each other as well as in concert” (83). Sharpe’s points are equally applicable to legal documents that address the king; each may

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 120

2/18/2011 3:50:41 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

121

be crafted to project specific arguments that venture far beyond the ostensible purview of the document. For Mary and Brandon, their careful fashioning of the legal indentures regarding repayment of their debts to Henry served partly as official business transaction, partly as public gesture of submission to kingly authority, and partly as a reminder of their relationship to the king. In the first indenture, dated May 11, 1515, the parties are described as “oure soverane lord,” “the ryzt Excellent Princesse Quene Mary Dowagyer of ffraunce Suster to oure said soverane lord,” and “hys true & ffaithfull subget Charles duc of Suffolk.”6 From the start, Mary and Brandon praise Henry as a generous and caring brother, both in Mary’s outfitting for France and in helping her return home to “the great & syngler comford of the sayd quene.” Beyond flattery, they submit to his judgment as they “humble Besecheuth oure said soverane lord of hys habundant & Espeaciall grace to be Contented & to accept” the money and goods offered in recompense. The rest of the agreement lays out the payment details, but it is clear that this public submission was also a key element. At the same time, the constant insistence on Mary’s sororal status reminds other readers of the close bonds between Mary and Henry, making the indenture a document that bows to Henry’s authority even while emphasizing Mary’s rank and significance. The money Mary and Brandon owed Henry, particularly given frequent French delinquency in sending her dower revenues, ensured their continuing dependence on Henry’s benevolence. Polydore Vergil even claims that Wolsey prevented Henry from forgiving Brandon’s debts altogether precisely in order to foster this control over them.7 As it was, the couple frequently needed to beg Henry’s forbearance, necessitating further public gestures of submission and occasional displays of financial hardship. By leaving the court often for the country, the couple could economize, yet their political power depended on their relationship with Henry and their influence at court, requiring a finely honed balance of absence and presence. When they did appear, they requested Henry’s permission. For instance, in February, 1516, Brandon sent Henry the gift of some jewels and a goshawk as a token of good will accompanying a letter asking to have Henry’s pity and to know when Mary might come to court.8 Around the same time, he sent letters to Wolsey and Henry specifically explaining his desire to bring Mary so that when she helped settle the issue of the debts, she might show everyone she acted by “her deed and free will the which your grace shall well perceive it is done with good mind and heart.”9 These lines indicate Mary and Brandon’s understanding of the need to perform publicly their allegiance to Henry and their gratitude for his forgiveness. Moreover, Brandon hints that he lacks sufficient funds to attend Henry’s plans for pastime in May, but promises attendance if Henry so desires it, noting that Mary and he will wait on Henry’s pleasure at Bath Place “wyet houmbyll hart acordyng to her duetie and myn” (fol. 71v). The letter’s profession of financial hardship coupled with its proclamation of loyalty attempts to allay any of Henry’s fears regarding the couple’s ambitions. For all the apparent trepidation over the debts, however, very little of the money was actually repaid. Steven Gunn examines the different indentures—the December 7, 1516, agreement that lowered the payments, the May 1517 agreement that demanded payment even if the dower revenues were late—only to conclude that “all this was little more than a threat. By February 1 1521 only a further £1,334 6s. 9d. of the £25,234 6s. 9d. had been paid, and the couple were still Henry’s

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 121

2/18/2011 3:50:42 PM

122

The French Queen’s Letters

greatest debtors after Francis I.”10 Evidence of further indentures in 1525 and 1526, the latter of which included a requirement that any remaining jewels or plate given by Louis would belong to Henry on Mary’s death and which also promised debt forgiveness in the event hostilities between England and France stopped the dower revenues, testify to the ostensible ongoing concern with repayment.11 That no repercussions ever stemmed from their failure to repay Henry suggests the accuracy of Gunn’s conclusions, yet the repeated attempts to codify the remaining debt also suggest the rhetorical significance of these continuing reminders of Henry’s forgiveness and their indebtedness to his grace.

A Royal Lifestyle In his “Panorama of London,” drawn ca. 1543, the Flemish artist Anthony van den Wyngaerde provides a detailed sketch of a gorgeous house in Southwark, complete with at least five turrets crowned with cupolas and decorated with terracotta molding.12 John Stow’s Survey of London also mentions the residence, describing it as “a large and most sumptuous house, builded by Charles Brandon, late Duke of Suffolk, in the raigne of Henry the eight.”13 Stow’s account is a trifle misleading; the property had been in the Brandon family for many years, but after marrying Mary, Brandon commenced a massive renovation of the building, transforming it according to the latest fashion and thereby creating a London residence calculated to impress all who saw it. That kind of attention to display is a hallmark of Mary and Brandon’s married life; despite their debts to Henry, the couple lived as sumptuously as they could manage, in a style designed to remind people of Mary’s position as dowager queen and their close relationship to the English throne. Records of their numerous residences indicate that Mary and Brandon followed early modern architectural fashion by adding customized touches designed to affirm their identity and status. At Donnington Castle, for instance, Brandon added heraldic glass in the great hall to proclaim his ownership.14 Maurice Howard notes that although castles were no longer necessary as defensive structures, many aristocrats maintained them as proof of their lineage and status; for Brandon, who received the castle when he was given the dukedom, adding his insignia represented an act of laying claim to the building, together with its prestige.15 Similarly, at West Stow Hall in East Anglia, Mary’s arms were displayed on the porch of the brick mansion, which also boasted “embattled pediments, diamond-shaped tracery, and finial statues” ornamenting the building.16 Her coat of arms became part of an overall rhetorical message of the family’s significance. In the 1520s, the couple began constructing a hall at Westhorpe to serve as their main country residence; made of brick covered with black and white checkered plaster and terracotta, with elaborate chimneys, a large hall, and a chapel with stained glass windows, their home was built to impress.17 Among the decorations was a life-sized statue of Hercules and the lion, an image that must have resonated with Brandon’s strength.18 Mary also designed extensive gardens in the French fashion, subtly proclaiming a sophistication based on her experience in France.19 Little survives of the house, which was demolished in the eighteenth century, beyond a bridge decorated with terracotta and Brandon’s heraldic badge and a pediment with Mary’s arms that was used to decorate a farmhouse built nearby, perhaps signaling the continuing cultural cachet of such artifacts.20 Nevertheless such details were more than simple luxury; Sharpe demonstrates that Henry’s

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 122

2/18/2011 3:50:42 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

123

“buildings themselves blazoned the king’s identity and authority,” especially through the frequent exhibition of his coat of arms, badges, or initials (147). When Mary displayed her arms—which unite the heraldic symbols of France and England—she reminded visitors of her status as the French dowager queen; moreover, the wealth displayed within and without her homes would suggest the significance of her status in England.21 Beyond the luxury of their homes, Mary and Brandon also needed to maintain an extensive entourage to signify their consequence; their ability to attract young sons and daughters of the nobility to their household in hopes of future patronage was a sign of their influence at court. Mary retained several of the young nobles who had attended her in France, including the lady Elizabeth Grey, the sister of Thomas Grey, the Marquis of Dorset; George Brooke, the son of Thomas, Lord Cobham; and Richard Manners, the younger son of George, Lord Roos.22 She also kept Anne Jerningham and Humphrey Berners, the illegitimate son of John Bourchier, Lord Berners, her chamberlain in France.23 Gunn notes that other youngsters joined the Brandons hoping for royal patronage, one of whom, William, the future Lord Stourton, “specifically described himself as Mary’s servant, although the households were entirely integrated” (63–4). Within weeks of their marriage in England, Mary also convinced Brandon to retrieve his daughter Anne from the keeping of Margaret of Austria; his letter asking for her return explains that “the Queen has so entreated and prayed me to have her in spite of anything I could say to the contrary.”24 Like her grandmother Margaret Beaufort, Mary would have been responsible for overseeing the education of these young people, especially Brandon’s daughters, preparing them to fulfill their duties to their families and the court.25 Mary would also have been responsible for helping Brandon to run their estates, particularly when Henry required his presence at court. As Barbara Harris argues, “although aristocratic men employed professional and semiprofessional household and estate officials to assist them, no substitute existed for competent wives who shared their husbands’ interests and on whose loyalty they could count.”26 Harris also observes that although some evidence of such wifely activity exists, most of these records have been lost. In Mary’s case, limited proof remains indicating she employed officials to assist her; one document mentions officers in her household, including a vice chamberlain, steward, treasurer, and comptroller.27 A 1526 tax subsidy for Westhorpe Hall includes forty menservants, seven women, two knights, an esquire, and a Frenchman, who had presumably belonged to Mary’s entourage in France.28 A receipt makes specific reference to payments made to the secretaries of the Duke of Norfolk, the French queen and Duke of Suffolk, while Mary’s letter to Jane Popincourt dated June 20, 1528 specifically mentions her secretary Nicholas de St. Martin, who also writes letters on her behalf to Anne de Montmorency, the grand master of France.29 Given that only sixteen letters written after Mary’s return to England remain extant, two of which were written in her own hand, for her to employ her own secretary suggests that much of her regular correspondence did not survive. Assisting Brandon in strengthening their family’s position extended beyond the daily business of running the estates; Mary also took care to help enhance their cultural standing by patronizing the arts. At various times she employed musicians who played for her household’s entertainment and traveled under the protection of her name. For instance, John Levissey, a servant of Sir Henry Willoughby’s, notes the payment of two shillings’ reward to “a mynstryll of the

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 123

2/18/2011 3:50:42 PM

124

The French Queen’s Letters

Fraynche Kwenys” on December 30, 1520.30 Levissey seems to have made a distinction between Mary and Brandon’s servants, since on three separate occasions he notes payments for the “dowke of Swffokes” visiting bear-keeper, who was presumably holding a local bear-baiting.31 Mary also sent her minstrels to court; on August 26, 1532, Henry’s Privy Purse expenses record a payment of twentyeight shillings to “the French queen’s sackbuts.”32 Furthermore, Mary sponsored a group of traveling players; the Thetford Priory records payments in 1521/2 and 1527/8 to the “players of the Queen of France.”33 Bearing in mind Lawrence Clopper’s caution that the meaning of “play” in this period is fluid, the priory’s account may refer to musicians instead of actors.34 Regardless, the prior is precise in noting Mary’s patronage of this group; on separate occasions he notes players sponsored by the Duke of Suffolk.35 The town of Shrewsbury also notes payment of four shillings for a group of four “interluders” sponsored by the Duke of Suffolk in particular.36 Here too, Clopper contends these same records demonstrate that an interlude was unlikely to be a play in the modern sense, but rather constituted a musical performance with a visual component of some kind such as a pageant.37 But whether traditional play or musical spectacle, or some blend thereof, the record indicates that Mary and Brandon were each actively invested in promoting their reputations as patrons of the arts through their sponsorship of such entertainers. Such patronage conformed to contemporary custom; Greg Walker observes that Henry and all his wives and children maintained their own troupes of actors, as did various nobles.38 By joining them, Mary and Brandon reminded audiences of their rank by performing the duties expected of the highest nobility. In addition, since productions of plays and interludes throughout this period were designed to convey political propaganda as much as (or even more than) morality, Mary’s experience in political spectacle and courtly entertainments guaranteed her awareness of a play’s significance beyond mere display.39 While no specific evidence survives to indicate the content of any play Mary sponsored, nonetheless her patronage of such activity indicates her continued willingness to be involved with visual rhetoric. 40 Evidence does exist that Mary and Brandon staged entertainments in their home, thus engaging in courtly activities of spectacular display. Walker records “a disguising or dance with allegorical overtones in the duke’s household during the mid-1520s. The younger men of Brandon’s affinity took such roles as ‘Cur Noble’, ‘Valiant Desyr’ and ‘Bon Pastaunce’; the women ‘Mekenys’, [Meekness] ‘Beautie’, and ‘Dysport’ in what was evidently an imitation of the sort of entertainment Brandon enjoyed at court” (42). Indeed, this is exactly the kind of pastime both Brandon and Mary took pleasure in performing with Henry; by replicating such amusements at home, they enjoyed themselves while enhancing their cultural status. If Henry could increase his prestige by the magnificence of his entertainments, Mary would follow suit to assert her royal status and establish her household as a fashionable substitute for Henry’s court. There are also records of Mary’s use of music to create a specific image of power. Every year, she brought her musicians to the fair at Bury in East Anglia not far from her home as part of an extensive entourage designed to impress local audiences with her consequence. According to historical anecdote, Mary went every Year from her Manor of Westhorp to this Fair; she had a magnificent Tent, with a splendid Retinue, and a Band of Music, to attend, and to

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 124

2/18/2011 3:50:43 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

125

recreate the Persons of Distinction who came to pay her Homage. The Duke, who was the most dexterous Man of his Age in Tilting, engaged from all Parts of the Kingdom several armed Knights to these martial Exercises, which made this Fair for some Years frequented by many noble Personages.41

Brandon and Mary here engaged in activities calculated to proclaim their magnificence. Sitting in her elaborate tent, surrounded by her retainers, Mary must have been the very image of gracious royalty, while Brandon’s displays of athleticism would have enhanced his knightly renown still further. Such displays impressed their audience; the chronicler even notes their presence is what attracted other nobles to the fair. The couple clearly continued to practice the politics of chivalry even after their return to England; the more fame they garnered, the more influence they possessed at court and abroad. Traveling in such state was an important part of Mary’s status, underscoring the prestige of a dowager queen. Records indicate that she moved about often, not only from London to her various residences, but also visiting towns and abbeys throughout East Anglia. For instance, in 1515, upon leaving the court after their return to England, Mary and Brandon went to the town of Great Yarmouth, where chronicler Henry Manship records they were “receyved and enterteyned by the space of thre daies, whoe tooke greate good likinge of this Towne, and of the scituation of the same, promisenge that they would procure the Kinge’s Maiestie himself to come to see yt.” That this promise occurred so shortly after their return suggests their confidence in Henry’s renewed favor. Similar visits to other towns took place—Norwich in 1515 and 1529 and King’s Lynn in 1528, for example—each time the town welcoming them warmly, as appropriate for royalty.42 On certain occasions, town leaders presented gifts to Mary; the burgesses of King’s Lynn, for instance, agreed to give “the Frenche Quene and the Duc of Suffolk” two hogsheads of wine, four swans, and other fowl, emphasizing her royal title in their records.43 When describing her visit in the official town chronicle, the writer noted Mary’s presence only—“in this yere cam to lyne the quen of ffrance the deweke of Suffolk wyf”—even though Brandon was there on legal business to examine two men who had taken refuge in the sanctuary.44 Individuals also gave gifts as tokens of appreciation and perhaps in hopes of influencing future favors; Sir Thomas Lestrange, for instance, rode to visit Mary on three occasions and then made note of payments for a sturgeon and a dozen plovers he sent to her.45 Other people and towns sent gifts even when Mary was not staying locally. 46 Such practices were part of the established system of gift-exchange used to obtain favors at court and indicate that people saw Mary as a person whose influence was worth cultivating.47 Occasionally Mary and Brandon stayed at religious houses on their progresses, including Thetford Priory, but most especially at the Augustinian Butley Abbey, which records Mary’s presence on at least four occasions, sometimes for as much as two months’ time.48 Through such visits, Mary could underscore her reputation for piety while enjoying the hospitality of the monks in residence. On June 13, 1516, her first stay, their chronicler notes that they welcomed her “with as much honor as we religiously could,” describing how they set up silk cushions and canopies, processed formally in greeting, sprinkled holy water ceremoniously over her, and burned incense before going to the service.49 Such details echo the care with which French clerics greeted Mary in Boulogne on her arrival in France, suggesting that her royal status remained a source of high honor.

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 125

2/18/2011 3:50:43 PM

126

The French Queen’s Letters

While there, Mary behaved like a queen, sometimes emphasizing her generous piety, other times acting the gracious guest allowing her subjects to entertain her in a manner befitting her status. In 1516, she attended mass both days of her visit, on each occasion giving a gold noble as her offering. In 1527 and 1528, she stayed two months, sometimes accompanied by Brandon, sometimes staying alone when he traveled on other business. Together they went foxhunting in the local Staverton Park and Scuttegrove Wood, followed by outdoor dinners and games, or occasionally paying visits to local friends such as Sir John Glemham.50 On certain evenings Mary dined outdoors with the canons; on one August night their meal was interrupted by a storm and they had to take refuge inside the church itself to finish. At the end of the 1527 visit, Green notes that Mary distributed largesse to each of the friars and gave a canopy to hang over the pyx (a container to hold the Eucharist) and later, a chest embroidered in cloth of gold in which they could store their vestments.51 Mary and Brandon’s induction into the order of the Austin Canons in 1518, together with Henry and Catherine, confirms their close relationship with the Augustinians, who chose this means to express their gratitude for past patronage and encourage future support.52 What donations Mary may have made over the course of her life do not survive, yet her continued visits demonstrate a lifelong association, so much so that the Butley chronicler notes their hopes of being chosen to give Mary’s funeral mass (although she was interred at Bury St. Edmunds, the Butley prior did participate in the ceremony).53 Maintaining such connections with the church served a religious purpose, to be sure, but it also acted as a demonstration of Mary’s virtue, a quality that could only enhance her reputation as a great queen.

Attendance at Court Edward Hall contends that while some Englishmen were dissatisfied with Mary’s choice for second husband, “whatsoever the rude people said, ye duke behaved him selfe so, that he had both the favour of the kyng and of the people, his wytte and demeanour was such” (582). In this passage Hall underscores the chief currency of the Renaissance courtier: wit and manner. Since Mary and Brandon were both wealthy in such coin, they used these assets to secure their return to Henry’s good graces. The king valued the couple not only out of genuine affection but also for the cultural capital they brought to his court, especially his sister. For beyond her personal charm, intelligence, and beauty, Mary also added the cachet of her title: queen of France. It should therefore come as no surprise that whatever controversy the marriage had caused, after obtaining Henry’s forgiveness, Mary and Brandon soon participated fully in the events of the court. For instance, shortly after their arrival, Hall records that Henry held a magnificent May-ing, complete with the king and queen and all their court visiting Robin Hood in the forest for an informal picnic. His note that Brandon was one of the jousters who took part in the festivities that afternoon suggests that Mary and Brandon were already sufficiently forgiven to participate.54 Having reconciled himself to his sister’s actions, Henry drew on her talents to enhance the gaiety and magnificence of the entertainments so vital to his international reputation, and until Anne Boleyn’s ascendancy in the late 1520s, Mary remained a frequent fixture in his court. Over the years, records often mention Mary briefly, noting her attendance at various events, yet always in service of Henry’s reputation, adding to the glory

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 126

2/18/2011 3:50:43 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

127

of his court. Never again did she star in a ceremony centered on her importance; rather she tended to participate at Henry’s or Catherine’s side. Whether witnessing the ceremonies for Wolsey’s cardinalship, welcoming her sister Margaret, arriving at court for Easter, or attending a banquet at Greenwich, Mary enhanced the festivities by imparting the honor of her queenly status.55 Ambassadors’ frequent reports of Mary’s involvement in courtly events confirm her presence was perceived as an important part of Henry’s larger spectacular rhetoric of display. To Henry, she gave the reassurance that her ambitions were subordinate to his; to foreign dignitaries, she proclaimed the sophistication of the English court. Ambassadors’ detailed accounts afford an opportunity to examine in greater depth not only Mary’s activities but also the array of subtle messages her presence could convey both at home and abroad. For instance, Mary’s christening of a ship in November of 1515 provides an excellent example of the complex ways audiences could read her participation. In one sense, her appearance signaled Henry’s forgiveness; a mere six months after her return from France, he not only invited her to attend the new galley’s launch but also asked her to christen a vessel named in her honor.56 Then Wolsey added further meaning by invoking Mary’s presence to attempt to deflect French suspicions of Henry’s motives. The shipbuilding did not indicate military escalation, he assured Robert de Bapaumes, the French ambassador, but was rather “done solely to give pleasure and pastime to the queen and the queen Mary his sister; and that it was true that on Thursday last the king, the said queens, and all the council had dined on board, and made the greatest cheer and triumph that could be devised.”57 Here the queens became a signifier of festivity as Wolsey encouraged the French to read their participation as evidence of Henry’s desire to lavish his wife and sister with extravagant gifts. Although disingenuous, the excuse nonetheless demonstrates that the queens’ inclusion enabled Wolsey to slip easily into the discourse of chivalry to mask Henry’s martial intent. Bapaumes at any rate was not deceived, for he told Louise of Savoy, his correspondent, that he believed Henry would have attacked had Francis’s expedition to Italy gone poorly. Henry further belied Wolsey’s attempt with his proud display of English pride. Dressed in a sailor’s outfit (albeit in pants made of cloth of gold) and wearing a whistle on a chain hung with his motto, “Dieu et mon droit” (“God and my right”), Henry merged his emblems of kingship with naval costume.58 Suggesting the greatness of English naval power, Henry’s visual rhetoric enables yet another reading of Mary’s presence: to remind watchers of the recent English triumph in making her queen of France. Moreover, since Bapaumes reported the ship’s name as La Pucelle Marie, which could be translated as either the Virgin Mary or the Princess Mary, the French might even perhaps recall how recently they had exalted the English princess as comparable to Heaven’s queen.59 Whether or not Henry intended such symbolism is impossible to say, but regardless of his intent, by emphasizing Mary’s status as queen the English claimed a concomitant increase in honor within any courtly spectacles of power. Similarly, Mary’s participation in the July 1517 festivities held to entertain the Hispano-Burgundian ambassadors sent multiple messages, both domestically and internationally. The ambassadors, including Jacques, Duke of Luxembourg, had gone to England to celebrate the new treaty of friendship Henry had made with Charles and Maximilian. Because the agreement excluded Francis, it was especially important for Mary and Brandon to participate fully; by welcoming the ambassadors, they demonstrated their loyalty to Henry despite their fiscal

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 127

2/18/2011 3:50:43 PM

128

The French Queen’s Letters

dependence on French dower revenue. For international witnesses, Mary’s presence further enhanced the majesty of the display Henry had arranged to impress his guests. The apostolic nuncio Francesco Chieregato informed Isabella D’Este, the Marchioness of Mantua, that Henry paid the ambassadors every possible honor, including the fact that Mary stood with Catherine, Brandon, Norfolk, Dorset, and various barons, all of them wearing cloth of gold, to welcome the embassy.60 Giustinian reported to the Venetian Signory that during the banqueting at Greenwich, Mary sat at the head table between Henry and the Duke of Luxembourg.61 A document recording the seating arrangements and outlining notes for serving the dinner demonstrates that Mary’s placement was carefully planned according to rank; a diagram shows Henry in the middle, flanked by Catherine and Mary, with Luxembourg to Mary’s left and Wolsey to Catherine’s right.62 Chieregato likewise noted Mary’s presence at the jousts and the banqueting, which included lavish display, including jellies shaped like castles or animals, the dishes carried in on representations of elephants, lions, and panthers, while accompanied by music. Much impressed, Chieregato proclaimed, “In short the wealth and civilization of the world are here.”63 In the jousting earlier that day, Mary’s queenly status enabled the English to stage an elaborate chivalric spectacle asserting their preeminence through multiple layers of visual rhetoric. Henry had planned an epic tournament calculated to awe the crowd of fifty thousand spectators. But instead of jousting with Brandon on his team according to previous custom, Henry determined to face the duke as his opponent. Gunn observes that the change stemmed from Henry’s disgust at facing inferior adversaries in a tournament the previous year.64 The decision created an impressive show of athletic skill to which both Chieregato and Giustinian responded enthusiastically, each naming Henry and Brandon a new Hector and Achilles. But in addition, Chieregato notes that the king’s side wore the initials H and K for Henry and Katherine, while Hall observes that Brandon’s team bore the letters C and M for Charles and Mary (592). Because both teams jousted for the honor of a queen, they could claim an equality of sorts, effectively creating the impression of two separate teams, rather than one English tournament. Moreover, because both Henry and Brandon were acknowledged masters in the sport; by captaining teams in service of their ladies, they created the rhetorical effect of an early modern championship game, a veritable Tudor Superbowl or World Cup. Yet no matter the winner, English triumph was guaranteed, subtly hinting at England’s preeminence over all Europe. Given that Mary was to give birth only nine days later, the English clearly deemed her presence in the stands with Catherine a key element of the display. Her appearance at court at such a time, not to mention watching a full joust, then partaking in a banquet that lasted over seven hours, suggests the perceived value of her participation in the visual rhetoric of this spectacle. If Mary’s presence was an important part of the display arranged for the Burgundian ambassadors, it was even more crucial at the celebration of her niece (and namesake) Princess Mary’s betrothal to the dauphin of France in October 1518. Giustinian notes her prominence in the proceedings; for example, Mary and Henry led the masquing that took place after dinner on the day the peace treaty was signed, all of the dancers splendidly arrayed.65 At the betrothal, Mary and Catherine flanked Henry standing in front of his throne, the child Mary, only two and a half years old, in front of her mother. Then at the banquet, Mary again sat next to Henry, with Cardinal Campeggio on her other side.66 The pageant that

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 128

2/18/2011 3:50:44 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

129

took place after dinner included a rock with an olive tree, a fir tree, a lily, a rose tree, and a pomegranate tree, symbolizing the Pope, the Emperor, the King of France, the King of England, and the King of Spain, respectively, while the rock signaled the marriage of the Princess Mary and the dauphin Francis, indicating that the peace of Europe depended on this match. The adult Mary’s presence at this spectacle would recall the previous Anglo-French harmony, reminding those attending the betrothal of the success of her marital union with Louis in bringing peace. In the years that followed, Mary continued to play a role in courtly entertainments, the various ambassadors’ and chroniclers’ accounts testifying to her continued presence on the international stage. For instance, on March 7, 1519, after watching the performance of a comedy by Plautus to entertain the four French hostages who remained in England after the betrothal, Mary joined Henry once again in a masque, she and the other ladies dressed like Egyptians.67 The year 1520 saw Mary attend two separate meetings between Henry and her erstwhile fiancé Charles V in Dover and Gravelines. Any awkwardness seems to have been smoothed over neatly, since Charles greeted Mary with a kiss, and during the banqueting, she sat in a position of honor next to Henry, with Charles on her brother’s other side.68 In 1522, long before the divorce proceedings began, Mary and Anne Boleyn masqued together in a pageant referred to as Schatew [Chateau] Vert and sponsored by Wolsey at York Place.69 This masque’s conceit required the ladies Beautie, Honor, Perseveraunce, Kyndnes, Constance, Bountie, Mercie, and Pitie to be rescued from a castle by the knights Amorus, Noblenes, Youth, Attendaunce, Loyaltie, Pleasure, Gentlenes, and Libertie.70 In May 1523, Mary joined Henry and Catherine in welcoming the king and queen of Denmark to England, although Charles’s ambassador Louis de Praet was surprised to see that Catherine honored Mary above the visiting queen by seating Mary between them at dinner.71 He thought Mary’s second marriage should place her below his master’s sister; clearly the English disagreed. Then, on May 26, 1527, again commemorating an Anglo-French peace treaty, Mary, Catherine, and Henry all listened to an oration in Latin honoring Henry and Francis, followed by a debate between Love and Riches, a matter that resulted in stalemate, requiring an old man to deem both necessary to a king’s success.72 Such records as these demonstrate that Mary participated in the politics of chivalry throughout her life, employing her looks and charm to captivate audiences and enhance the reputation of Henry’s court. Guillaume Gouffier de Bonnivet, the Admiral of France, illustrates Mary’s success when he praised her by saying, “Madame, you are the rose of Christendom. You should have stayed in France. We would have appreciated you.”73 Bonnivet’s compliment suggests the value of Mary’s person—she is not merely a Tudor rose, but a rose that could surpass all Christendom—while his wish that she had remained in France speaks to the importance of the cultural capital such a woman might bring to an early modern court.

Overseas Influence The birth of Henry’s daughter Mary facilitated a kind of déjà vu for the English; for the second time in four years, an English princess named Mary was betrothed to French royalty. For a short while after the 1518 betrothal, Anglo-French amity seemed to reign, leading to a 1520 meeting between Henry and Francis on which

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 129

2/18/2011 3:50:44 PM

130

The French Queen’s Letters

both monarchs spent so much money making spectacular preparations it was better known as the Field of Cloth of Gold. Having had ample experience of the fragility of alliances based on childhood betrothals (and now willing to take advantage of the same) Henry preferred to hedge his bets by making overtures to Charles V, who had been elected Holy Roman Emperor after Maximilian’s death. He therefore hosted Charles briefly in Dover before proceeding to Guisnes for the meeting with Francis and then met the Emperor again for four days at Gravelines after the three weeks spent in France. By playing Francis and Charles against one another, Henry hoped to gain more advantage for himself. The Field of Cloth of Gold was a major undertaking for both sides, including jousting, feasting, masquing, and other expensive entertainments. For the three-week conference, Henry even constructed a temporary palace at Guisnes, complete with suites for Henry, Catherine, Mary, and Wolsey, while the French erected magnificent tents, the main one supposedly costing 300,000 ducats.74 Although historians once tended to dismiss this summit as a failure or as wasteful propaganda because the peace deteriorated so quickly afterwards, more recently scholars have sought to examine the event within the context of early modern spectacular rhetoric.75 Glenn Richardson argues that Henry and Francis’s actions “were centred firmly on the values of personal honor enshrined in the chivalric code of the nobility which was a vital element of Renaissance kingship.”76 He later carried that argument further, suggesting that to read the spectacular meeting as a contemporary peace conference is to misunderstand its fundamental purpose, which was not to make peace, but rather to demonstrate martial power and wealth in order to impress the French.77 Kevin Sharpe interprets the event similarly, noting that Henry and Francis used the display “to stage peace as victory” while demonstrating personal and national military strength through the joust.78 Given the elaborate visual and oral rhetoric crafted by both sides, the nature of Mary’s participation in the events that June deserves careful consideration to determine what her presence contributed to the overall message being sent by the English. The details of her appearance in Henry’s entourage were included in Wolsey’s planning from the start. On March 16, Brandon responded to Wolsey’s request for a list of the men and women who would accompany Mary to France, as well as the servants and horses she planned to bring.79 Brandon also notes that Mary was content to follow Wolsey’s direction since both she and the duke trusted him “to take the peyne to ordre the same as ye shall think shall stonde moost with the kinges pleasur and her honor.”80 He adds that although her recent illness made it impossible for him to go to court, her “good Amendement” would allow him to attend on Wolsey the following week. In this fashion, Brandon apprises Wolsey of her illness but reassures him it will present no obstacle to her traveling to France, nor delay his arrival in London much longer. To some extent, Mary’s beauty made her an important part of the visual spectacle. However frivolous it might seem, national pride was bound up in the loveliness of its ladies. Richard Wingfield warned Henry in advance that the French were actively seeking out the most beautiful women of the court to attend the festivities. Therefore, he hoped that Catherine would “bring such in her band that the visage of England, which hath always had the prize” would be maintained.81 In fact, the Mantuan ambassador to France, Jacopo Soardino, wrote to his marquis Federico Gonzaga that he was unimpressed with Catherine’s retinue, who not only lacked both grace and beauty but also he claims, drank

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 130

2/18/2011 3:50:45 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

131

excessively.82 Worse, they shared the same cups with the French lords, passing them around more than twenty times, a custom he clearly deplored. By contrast, Polydore Vergil criticized the Frenchwomen’s immodesty, especially because the Englishwomen then embraced the same fashion: “from many most wanton creatures in the company of the French ladies, the English ladies adopted a new garb which, on my oath, was singularly unfit for the chaste.”83 The women’s appearance and behavior was as much a part of the spectacle as the men’s ability to joust. To have in their company at least one woman whom all Europe celebrated for her beauty was clearly a coup for the English. Mary’s good looks, however, were only one aspect of her appearance; her clothing, trappings, and jewels completed the rhetorical portrait. When Mary dined with Claude, Soardino commented favorably on Mary’s dress and jewels, especially her gorgeous pearls.84 Moreover, multiple accounts of the event record details of Mary accompanying Catherine to the jousting; two of them note Mary’s splendid litter, which was decorated with crimson satin embroidered in gold.85 A letter written to Pietro Montemerlo, a royal senator of Milan, describes its ornamentation, noting in particular the initials L and M, as well as Louis’s emblem the porcupine all over, indicating that the litter dated from Mary’s reign in France.86 People paid attention to such details because they were part of the overall visual rhetoric; when Francis and Henry sported initials on their clothes, chroniclers took note of the meanings conveyed.87 Here, as Glenn Richardson argues, Mary’s litter was part of a much deeper rhetorical message; the trappings associated with her first marriage became a memorial of the Anglo-French peace established in 1514.88 Given the attention paid to every detail of the summit, her furniture and goods were carefully selected to create maximum impact. In this instance, Mary’s litter is elevated to attract attention, allowing her to see and to be seen. The crowds watching would note that the L and M remained linked to that day, even after Louis was gone, so that the litter became a tangible symbol of peace.89 Similarly, Mary’s suite of rooms typified the architectural rhetoric of the temporary castle Henry ordered built to proclaim English magnificence and power. Soardino describes how the two halls outside Mary’s rooms were decorated, one hung with a gorgeous tapestry and the other with more crimson satin, embellished with the initials M and L as well as porcupines embroidered in gold.90 Within, her bedchamber contained a canopy of gold brocade and hangings made of gold and silk. Judging by its effect on Soardino, Henry’s plan to impress visitors with the sumptuousness of his palace succeeded. Seen within the context of a larger rhetorical message, Mary’s belongings illustrated the wealth of English resources even as they symbolized a time when Mary, like the Virgin, brought peace to warring lands. At the same time, such details also served to elevate Mary’s importance in effecting that accord. Yet Mary’s role extended beyond visual spectacle to the aural; although the only speeches recorded in the various accounts belong to Francis and Henry, her presence in the various meetings between the French and English monarchs is documented frequently. Since Mary could speak both English and French, at times she must have engaged in helping the different sides to communicate more effectively. Joycelyne Russell argues that Mary and Catherine, who both spoke French, probably facilitated some conversations between the various ladies, especially since one chronicle indicates difficulty in that area.91 In addition to the practical value of such skill, Mary’s bilingual ability would also have provided another delicate reminder of her position as a link between the two nations.

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 131

2/18/2011 3:50:45 PM

132

The French Queen’s Letters

Since the meeting at the Field of Cloth of Gold centered so much on display and magnificence, Mary’s presence further favored the English, not only because of her noted beauty and charm but also because her title of French queen tipped the sheer numerical balance of royalty toward the English side. Like the queen in chess, Mary was the most flexible piece; she could move in any direction. Henry and Francis, Catherine and Claude, were balanced constantly in pairs; the protocol of each encounter was carefully planned so that at formal banquets, the queens would remain in their home camps as hostesses while the kings each traveled to visit the other side. This was done deliberately; Wolsey’s proclamation of the details specified that Henry, Catherine, and Mary would have “superioritie and preheminence” in the French territory, while Francis and Claude would have similar privileges visiting the English side.92 But although etiquette demanded that Catherine host Francis and Claude perform likewise for Henry, Mary was essentially a free agent, able to travel wherever she might do the English the most good. On some occasions, she therefore remained with Catherine, adding vivacity to the English court, while on others she traveled with Henry to visit the French, giving him a strong female presence in both camps.93 Held each Sunday of the summit, the sumptuous banquets were carefully choreographed to impress. Indeed, one observer noted that the kings and queens never actually ate at the banquets, but did so beforehand at home so that they might be free to chat with one another about the marvels of each course’s service and appearance.94 Both sides sought to establish a strong precedent in the first of these affairs, which took place on June 10 with elaborate ceremony. Therefore, when Francis arrived at Guisnes, accompanied by the Dukes of Vendôme, Bourbon, and Lorraine, and others totaling 100 gentlemen and 100 of the Scots Guard, they were escorted by Wolsey past the English servants and the guards, all in their “best apparell in goodly order,” then into the chamber where the two queens, with their ladies and gentlemen all arrayed in their best, stood to welcome them.95 Catherine and Francis sat opposite one another under a rich canopy, with Mary and Wolsey alone joining them at the table, about three yards distant.96 When Francis first entered, a fountain decorated with a statue of Bacchus began to spout wine in “great plente,” while on the opposite side was found a statue of a female Cupid, “the goddesse with an arow in her hand blyndfold.”97 It is interesting to consider that the English chose a female Cupid to prefigure the two queens waiting to welcome the French king, an image of female power to induce love. Given that peacemaking was supposedly the purpose of the entire affair, such imagery elevates the feminine role in creating harmony between the rival countries. After the banquet, Mary and one of the French nobles led the dancing, which continued until eleven at night, the time prearranged for each king to return home.98 An English chronicler notes that Francis kissed all the ladies, save for five who “were ould and not faire,” showing again the importance of beauty.99 Using Mary to begin the dancing rather than Catherine was a logical choice— Mary was an accomplished dancer who often led such activities at Henry’s side back in England and whose good looks would enhance the display. Putting her in a starring role here was part of the carefully plotted spectacle designed to impress Francis. The English efforts clearly had an impact; another chronicler notes that although he was in Ardres with Henry, he heard that Catherine and Mary welcomed Francis with all possible courtesies.100 Word thus spread as the English desired.

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 132

2/18/2011 3:50:45 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

133

Both English and French queens played prominent roles in the pageantry of the jousts. Dressed in extravagant fabrics and jewels, the queens ascended the scaffolding to watch their husbands and brothers test each other’s skill. As always, their role was to inspire their knights to greatness; one account even compared the women’s beauty to the princesses of the Heroides. When any challenger was defeated, he was required to give a gold piece to his lady, but if he won, then she would grant him a similar token of esteem.101 Mary attended them all, even on days when Catherine and Claude remained at home. An English chronicler notes that “oure ffrench quene accompenyed with her ladies and gentilwomen” met several French ladies to watch the jousts on Tuesday, June 12.102 Although it was so windy that the kings declined to participate, Mary and the other ladies nonetheless remained to observe the participants. On one occasion, Mary and Henry rode together to the jousts, attended by Brandon, Buckingham, Dorset, and other nobles.103 Then on Thursday, June 14, when Brandon ran twenty-four courses, breaking eighteen staves in the process and scoring three “great atteynth” or hits, Mary was there with Catherine and Claude to applaud her husband’s success.104 According to a contemporary song set to music by William Cornish, it was a lady’s role to support her lord in this fashion. Sung from the woman’s perspective, the song praises her “soverayne lorde,” whose achievement in the joust is accomplished for her sake.105 Promising to love him “whilles lyve or breth is in my brest” and exalting him as a king, she rewards him with her prayers: “Of God I ask for hym request / Off all gode fortunes to send hym best” (lns. 1, 36–7). The lady’s presence is a tribute to her knight’s skill and part of the rhetoric of chivalry. As royalty, Mary’s attendance at the joust would have honored the fighters contending before her, Brandon most of all. After the first week, Mary accompanied Henry to the French camp at Ardres for the elaborate banquets. Here too, she took a prominent role in the dancing and feasting, underscoring her royalty. On June 17, the two French queens, Mary and Claude, dined together under a canopy while Henry sat with Admiral Bonnivet. Soardino records that both Mary and Claude were dressed beautifully, with expensive jewels, and that both wore gorgeous pearls.106 Such visual coincidence, whether intended or not, would have reinforced Mary’s connection with the French and emphasized her continued royal status. After dinner, Mary again led the dancing and later that evening, Henry participated in a masque with dancers in costumes from Germany, Milan, and England; the Tudor siblings thus continued to demonstrate their mastery of the courtly arts, proclaiming English magnificence. Because Mary was poised so neatly between the two countries, her presence could also be used by the French. The following Sunday, June 24, Mary and Henry repeated their performance from the week before, this time masquing the “life of Hercules,” a topic that encouraged associations with Henry’s strength.107 Later that evening, according to the English chronicler, the Duke of Bourbon, “like a noble prince desired and did serve her grace of her cupp with all honor and reverence to him possible.”108 He had performed similar functions for Mary when she was Louis’s wife; to exalt her in this fashion was to recall the days she spent as reigning queen of France and remind spectators that she remained their queen, albeit a dowager. It is also possible that by doing so, he subtly signaled his affection for the English, something that would matter more three years later when he rebelled against Francis by allying with Henry and Charles V. By birth and

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 133

2/18/2011 3:50:46 PM

134

The French Queen’s Letters

remarriage English, by title and marriage French, Mary stood at a rhetorical crossroads between the two nations, capable of sending messages to both sides.

Royal Heirs Shakespeare’s Henry VIII closes with the birth and christening of Princess Elizabeth, of whom Archbishop Cranmer prophesies: “This royal infant—heaven still move about her— / Though in her cradle, yet now promises / Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings.”109 The delighted (fictional) Henry declares a holiday after promising to follow her career from heaven. In Cranmer’s subsequent speech detailing those blessings, Shakespeare flatters his queen, yet he also outlines the hopes embodied in a royal heir and the impact it would have for the country. Such rhetoric indicates the depth of anxiety concerning the lack of an heir that permeated the real Henry’s early reign. By the time of Mary’s marriage to Brandon, Henry was growing anxious. After at least three pregnancies he and Catherine had no living offspring. By October of 1515, however, all three Tudor siblings were expecting a child, which must have seemed like an omen of hope. It was a matter for comment; Lorenzo Pasqualigo passed the news of three pregnant queens to his brothers just one day before Margaret gave birth to a daughter, Margaret Douglas, on October 7.110 Catherine followed next; Princess Mary, named in her aunt’s honor, was born on February 18, 1516. To Giustinian’s remark lamenting her sex, Henry responded that he and Catherine were still young; “if it was a daughter this time, by the grace of God the sons will follow.”111 Finally, Mary gave birth to her first son, named Henry for his uncle, on Tuesday, March 11, between ten and eleven o’ clock at night in London at Bath Place. For the happy Brandons, naming their son Henry was not only a matter of flattering the king, it was also a subtle acknowledgment of their son’s importance to the realm. If God elected not to grace Henry with sons after all, Henry Brandon might well assume the throne one day. The opulence of his christening reflected his status, as did the choice of his godparents: Henry, Wolsey, and his great-aunt Katherine, the Countess of Devon. Wolsey as a prince of the church signaled great honor, while the infant’s uncle the king and his great-aunt the daughter of King Edward IV affirmed his connection to royalty through both Tudor and York lines.112 Comparing the account of the infant Henry’s christening with a heraldic manuscript outlining the ceremonies appropriate for a future king demonstrates the baby’s importance; save that the young Brandon was attended by lords rather than princes or earls, the celebrations were equal in magnificence.113 The rite took place the next Thursday after the birth, allowing time to ready the elaborate preparations. The floor was laid with rushes and over the hall door a porch was built and covered with tapestry and cloth of gold, as was the hall itself. The altar was draped in fabric embroidered with cloth of gold, then laid out with relics, a crucifix, candlesticks, four basins, and religious images decorated with silver and gilt. In front of the altar they built a set of steps and covered them with carpets and cushions on which the godparents would kneel. Over the baptismal font there was a crimson satin canopy embroidered with Tudor roses as well as the York emblem of the sun and Mary’s arms. Even the water was strained and maintained at a careful lukewarm temperature by two esquires specifically appointed to the purpose. Every detail proclaimed the child’s rank and celebrated his royal heritage.

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 134

2/18/2011 3:50:46 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

135

The participants in the ceremony also honored baby Henry’s status, including the king, regardless of whatever mixed emotions he may have had—anxiety about his own lack of a son, envy of his sister, concern about the Brandons’ ambitions, or perhaps even a sense of relief at the knowledge of the birth of an English Tudor son, even if not his own. The hall was lined with over 100 torchbearers as Lady Anne Grey, a gentlewoman in Mary’s household, carried in the baby, assisted by Lord Dacres, Mary’s chamberlain, and Lord Edward Grey, the train borne by Sir Humphrey Banaster. About forty more ladies, all richly dressed, followed the procession. The Bishops of Durham and of Rochester led the ceremonies, assisted by other clerics; Henry himself gave the child’s name, while the Duke of Norfolk bore the towel and the Lord Burgavenny the basin. The godparents gave wealthy gifts in token of their esteem—Henry a salt cellar and cup of gold, Wolsey two silver and gilt flagons, and Katherine, two plain pots of silver and gold—while the celebrant Bishop Durham gave two pots also decorated with silver and gilt. After they processed out, the expensive presents in prominent display, the baby was carried back to Mary, who could not attend the ceremony, having not yet been churched. Together, the homage paid the child and the pains taken with the ceremony testified to the importance of his mother’s title and the baby’s relationship to the king. The differences between young Henry’s christening and that of his sister Frances a little over a year later suggests the comparative significance of the birth of a royal nephew. Mary gave birth to Frances at Hatfield Castle between two and three o’clock in the morning on Thursday, July 16, 1517, only a few days after she left the court on her way to Walsingham Priory.114 Born on St. Francis’s Day, the infant girl’s name commemorated the saint; the choice also allowed her parents to pay tribute to King Francis, using the honor to thank him for past help and to suggest their ongoing healthy relationship. Given that the couple had just participated in celebrations of the Anglo- Spanish accord, they must have been pleased that the coincidence of date enabled them to flatter the French king without arousing English suspicion of disloyalty. Frances’s christening was sumptuous; in addition to the cloth of gold, there were also tapestries of the histories of Holofernes and Hercules, the latter of which was presumably the one that her mother had first brought to her French marriage. Again there was a crimson canopy with red and white roses, the sun, and French fleurs-de-lis, together with Mary’s arms in four places. All the visual rhetoric carefully marked the infant girl as Mary’s daughter and descendant of royalty. The chief difference lay in those attending the ceremony; the godfather was the Abbot of St. Albans and the godmothers were Queen Catherine and Princess Mary, but they sent deputies, Lady Boleyn for Catherine and Lady Elizabeth Grey for the princess.115 In this instance, only twelve torchbearers lit the room and only a few lords and ladies waited on the infant. The rhetorical message was clear; Mary commanded respect, but the birth of a daughter had fewer implications for the succession. Another daughter, Eleanor, was born sometime between 1518 and 1521, and although no documentation of her christening survives, her ceremony likely mirrored her sister’s rather than her brother’s.116 Nevertheless, Mary’s connection to the throne remained a matter of import. On September 10, 1519, Giustinian gave a report summarizing the state of affairs in England; when he described Brandon, he included the possibility of the duke’s claiming the throne through his wife’s status.117 Moreover, Hall notes that on June 18, 1525, “the lorde Henry Brandon, sonne to the duke of Suffolke and the

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 135

2/18/2011 3:50:46 PM

136

The French Queen’s Letters

Frenche Quene the kynges sister, a childe of twoo yere old, was created Erle of Lincolne.”118 Young Brandon was given the title in the same ceremony that elevated Henry’s illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy to the title of Duke of Richmond and Somerset, the same day that his daughter Princess Mary was given her own household. However, Hall’s note of young Henry’s age is no error; this was Mary’s second son, suggesting that her much-anticipated firstborn died untimely, although the details are not recorded.119 Given that Henry was clearly thinking about the succession, it is significant that he took care to include Mary’s son as a possible candidate for consideration. Ultimately, Henry decided that he would rather see Mary’s descendants crowned king before Margaret’s offspring, even though the Scottish queen was older. Ignoring the Scottish line altogether, his will included provisions that the throne should descend to any heirs of Frances and Eleanor Brandon in the event that his own children died without issue.120 As she may well have anticipated, Mary’s choice to return to England and remain close with her brother thus had significant ramifications for the English succession; had her son survived, he almost certainly would have been crowned king after the death of Edward VI. Sadly, Mary’s decision and Henry’s will also helped bring tragedy to her granddaughter Jane Grey, whose proximity to the English throne led her to be crowned queen so briefly in 1553.

“I amm so bolde”: Mary as Patroness121 “Annuity of 50l.” “Annuity of 20l.” “Office of ‘Landarius’ of Claryngdon park.” “Annuity of 20 marks.” “2s a day and 20 marks a year.” “For services to Mary, Queen of the French.”122 That last phrase echoes frequently in summaries of documents written during the months following Mary’s return to England; Mary took great care to persuade Henry to reward those who had served her. Some people, such as Mary Redyng, Elizabeth Chambyr, Dorothy Verney, and Humphrey Banaster, were granted annuities as outlined above, while others, such as Jane Popincourt, received a lump sum.123 William Uvedale was given a new office and John Husee was re-appointed justice of the peace, a position he had relinquished to go to France with Mary.124 For other servants, such as her secretary-tutor John Palsgrave, Mary remained a lifelong benefactor. But all Mary’s activities as patron—soliciting financial rewards and employment, requesting legal pardons, or supporting artists and writers—held at least one element in common: all of them demonstrated her continuing participation in the economy of influence by which Tudor society functioned. By asking and granting favors, Mary not only fulfilled her duty as benevolent monarch but also exercised her queenly prerogatives in a display of political power. When Mary first solicited Wolsey for preferment for John Palsgrave, she was still married to Louis; she asked Wolsey to help the scholar remain in France, noting “I intend my sellff som what to do for hym” but could not until her estate was settled.125 She kept that promise, showing a lasting loyalty to her erstwhile tutor. In 1529, when Palsgrave was short of funds and needed to care for his mother, he left instructions for Sir William Stevenson to beg Mary and Brandon for help on his behalf. In that document he outlined his plans to resign certain benefices to pay his debts but asked Mary for a loan and assistance gaining a new benefice. He also requested that she help him find a way to keep most of his livings, praying that Stevenson would “schewe the Quenes Grace that very sory I wold be to

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 136

2/18/2011 3:50:47 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

137

forsake all the thynges I have in Suffolke.”126 These lines suggest that Mary had fulfilled her earlier vow “to do for hym.”127 However, in addition to providing him with direct financial assistance, Mary also supported Palsgrave by helping him receive royal literary patronage. In the dedicatory letter to Henry prefacing his monumental work of scholarship, Lesclaircissement de la langue francoyse, Palsgrave notes that he originally approached Mary and Brandon, “to whom for their manyfolde benefytz I was so highly bounden,” for backing (fol. A2v). But when they examined his labors in the first two books, “of their great goodnesse and synguler favour towardz me / moche more estemyng them than they in dede were worthy / their graces dyde than put me in a farther hope and conforte / that your highnesse / whiche of your great bountuousnesse and notable benignyte . . . wolde nat refuse benignely and in good parte to accept the thyng” (fol. A2v). Palsgrave’s letter provides further evidence that Mary continued to support him after her return from France. More than money and position, Mary provided the favor of her recommendation. Henry responded favorably to the project, thanking Palsgrave for his service to Mary, praising his work effusively, and providing a warrant granting him exclusive print rights (fol. A4r-v). By recording his initial approach to Mary in the dedication as well as Henry’s warrant, Palsgrave effectively advertised royal endorsements from both a king and a queen. By commending Palsgrave to Henry, Mary ensured his work would receive a kingly sponsorship that would enhance his book’s reputation. The ploy may have contributed to the work’s success; certainly the Lesclaircissement was highly valued. Indeed, Stephen Vaughan wrote to Thomas Cromwell asking to obtain him a copy, claiming “If I had one, I wolde no lesse exteme it then a Jewell.”128 Mary received other bids for her literary patronage, suggesting that her interest in the arts, or at least her desire for a reputation for interest in the arts, was known.129 In 1530 Pierre Valence, her son’s French tutor, wrote a book titled Introductions in Frensche for Henry the Yonge Erle of Lyncoln (childe of greate esperaunce) sonne of the most noble and excellent princesse Mary.130 Only a fragment exists, so what appeal he may have made to Mary besides advertising her name in the title is unknown. The Augustian canon Thomas Paynell, however, dedicated two works to Mary, both of which survive: a translation of a French text, The assaute and conquest of heven, and a translation of Erasmus’s De contemptu mundi. In The assaute and conquest of heven, Paynell’s dedication celebrates Mary’s royal status by identifying her as “the moste highe moste vertuous and mooste excellent princesse the moste noble quene Mary dowager of France / daughter and syster unto the mooste victorious kynges of Englande and of France” (fol. A2r). He also flatters by according her extraordinary influence, asserting that if love of God and the precepts of the book did not move readers, then on “redynge your name and remembrynge your vertuous disposytion your clene lyfe and chastite [they] shalbe the redyer to hate yll and ensewe vertue” (A3r). Paynell explains that he has chosen Mary rather than a man because of the virtuous examples of women before her, such as “the warriour” St. Catherine, “the invincible martyr” St. Margaret, “the hardy champion” St. Barbara, and the “wyse captayne” St. Ursula, as well as classical heroine-queens Penthesilea, Cleopatra, and Camilla (Aiiir-v). Even as he pays Mary the compliment of trusting (accurately) that she was sufficiently well educated to have knowledge of their stories, Paynell places her within a pantheon of renowned women capable of inspiring Christians to virtue.

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 137

2/18/2011 3:50:47 PM

138

The French Queen’s Letters

Presumably Mary gave Paynell some form of encouragement, since he dedicated the Erasmus translation to her a few years later.131 This work opens with the exact same language as before, highlighting Mary’s queenly status. Here, however, Paynell swiftly shifts gears from Mary’s royal state to her virtuous piety: I was so bolde to dedicate to your grace princesse mooste excellent, as to the verye patronesse and favourer of holy religion. For all thoughe ye be a quene and have alway kepte a state of a princesse moste high shynynge in glory and ryches and therto furnished with all moste honorable pleasures & delytes, belongynge to nobilite yet have you ben alway moste virtuous devout and charitable. The whiche greate pietie & godly mynde enforced me to dedicate this final boke to your grace. (A.iiir)

In the process, he emphasizes her power as a queen in order to impress readers further with her (anticipated) regard for his work. At the same time Mary’s piety and charity made her an exemplar to his readers. As Timothy Elston notes, Mary followed the Tudor’s “long tradition of supporting learning,” especially the example of her grandmother Margaret, who particularly favored works of a religious or educational nature.132 Sponsoring such texts enabled Mary to build a reputation for virtue while establishing herself as a patron worth courting. Mary’s patronage extended beyond scholarship to the fine arts, from the musicians she employed and sponsored on tours to the artist she recommended to the French king. On June 13, 1530, she wrote to Francis on behalf of a painter to whom she referred as Master Ambroise. Explaining that the artist had come to England and made great gifts to Henry and her that delighted them both, she asks that Francis keep the man in his remembrance. Moreover, she requests that he let the artist know that any patronage he gives is for her sake, “giving him to know by you that it is at my request, that it is my writing that has been profitable to him.”133 In this fashion, Mary ensures that the effects of her patronage are well known. As she had done with Palsgrave, Mary used her influence with a king to provide better reward; she herself might give some monetary gift. As Ambroise’s example shows, her patronage was sought, but more than in her own right, her queenly status meant that she could provide a path to greater power by calling on her relationships at the center of the court. By facilitating such contact, Mary acts as a power broker, and her last lines to Francis demonstrate that she knows there is value for her in being seen to have such influence. In assisting Ambroise, she follows the example of her peers who understood that artists were a valuable commodity in a world that so esteemed display; being connected to such talent not only produced tangible artwork for the monarch in question but also enhanced her reputation for style and generosity.134 In her letter to Francis, Mary carefully styles herself his “bonne mere” (“his good mother”), a conceit Francis frequently echoed, referring to Mary as “ma belle mere” (“my mother-in-law”) in his letters to Henry.135 Her usage of the term here serves to underscore her status; as queen of France and his stepmother-inlaw, she was entitled to his respect. In all of her correspondence, Mary draws on the authority of her title in this fashion, usually with her signature, “Mary queen of France.” Her letter to Wolsey dated March 17, 1528, for example, closes thus, the only part of the letter in her own hand, marking the significance of her title.136 Even though she is asking Wolsey for a favor, concluding with this

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 138

2/18/2011 3:50:47 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

139

evidence of her rank deftly reminds her longtime ally of her own importance at court. In this letter to Wolsey Mary acted on behalf of one of her chaplains, showing how her patronage extended to finding lucrative positions for her protégés. Reminding Wolsey that he had promised her chaplain a benefice, she informed him that a certain Master Belknap was trying to poach the office by petitioning Henry for it, and she urged the powerful churchman to make certain his promise was fulfilled. In this manner, she quietly suggests that Wolsey’s authority is being usurped, that Belknap is attempting an end run around the cardinal by appealing to the king. This subtle persuasion helps to demonstrate why Mary was able to maintain such influence at court. Not only had Wolsey promised this benefice to her chaplain, but on July 14 1527, John Golde, her almoner, was granted a canonry and prebend at a church in Tamworth.137 Mary understood how to appeal to those in power in order to accomplish her desires. When writing to Henry, Wolsey, or Francis, Mary usually either asked favors and/or sought to maintain a good relationship, and her rhetoric reflected these goals; she typically “recommends” herself to them and asks for their assistance, confident in their regard for her, but nonetheless taking the appropriate rhetorical posture for any supplicant. By contrast, when she wrote to other nobles, she assumed the full authority of her own position. For instance, her last known letter, written March 10, 1533, to Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, on behalf of a soldier named John Williams, opens with the royal plural and formal language of a monarch: “Right trusty and right welbelovid Cousin we grete you well.”138 She assumes that he will grant her request to employ Williams as a soldier in Calais, promises to hold him in her favor in return, and then closes by requesting that he “advertise us by this berer in your writing” of his “good mynde herin.” Alone of Mary’s extant letters, this document is signed in the upper left hand corner, as per royal prerogative.139 As James Daybell notes, letter writing manuals from the period proscribed certain formats for the letter, dictating that the placement of the signature, especially its distance from the body of the letter, reflects the writer’s social position. In 1568, he notes, William Fulwood’s The Enimie of Idlenesse even specified that signatures be placed on the left when writing to inferiors, the middle when writing to equals, and the right when addressing one’s superiors.140 Examining royal letters from the period reveals that monarchs did sometimes utilize this kind of visual rhetoric by placing their signatures above the body of the letter altogether, allowing them to create a subtle reminder of formal authority when they so chose.141 That Mary opted to employ this formal placement here would have reminded Lisle of her status as he considered her request, making it more likely he would acquiesce. Mary’s letter on behalf of Williams demonstrates that she continued to exercise her influence on behalf of those who asked for her patronage throughout her life. Still other letters show how dedicated she could be to helping a single individual. In 1528, she commenced a virtual campaign on behalf of Anthoine du Val, one of her clercs d’office, or clerk of the closet, to obtain a similar position for him in Francis’s retinue. On three occasions, she wrote to Anne de Montmorency, the Grand Master of France, initially to solicit his help, and then to remind him of his pledge of assistance.142 On one occasion, Brandon added his voice by writing an accompanying letter of support. Furthermore, Mary also wrote to Jane Popincourt, who had moved to France, to ask for her aid.143 In her letters to Montmorency, Mary emphasizes du Val’s honesty and responsibility, but just like

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 139

2/18/2011 3:50:47 PM

140

The French Queen’s Letters

her letter to Francis about the painter Ambroise, she mentions that she wants du Val to know that she was the source of the gift, so that “he would always have remembrance of me,” perhaps so that he might recompense her with prayers, perhaps by helping her in requests for favors.144 In the latter letters, she apologizes for bothering Montmorency, but excuses herself by noting that Catillon, whom he had charged to remind him of his promise to help, was in Italy, and therefore she dared to write again. Moreover, in the last one, she makes her importunity a pledge of future aid, saying “I wish to pester you in this a little so that you will be able to count me among your party in any thing when it will please you to employ me” and then closes with a prayer for God to keep watch over Montmorency.145 In this fashion, Mary buys his service with a combination of present prayer and the promise of future favor. That kind of economy of prayer is common in early modern letters; such promises were part of the gift exchange system. Yet Mary’s letter to Jane Popincourt on the same subject provides an even better example of how early modern correspondents employed letters and gifts to sustain relationships and maintain channels of influence.146 Mary writes affectionately to her friend and thanks her for the gifts Popincourt had sent her children recently. It is that very affection that leads her to presume to ask a favor: “I thank you well, perceiving that you do not forget the kindnesses of the past and the nurture between us two on which account I always consider you one of my family and conduct myself more familiarly with you than with any other over there [in France], for the sake of which I would like to employ you.”147 Mary then asks Popincourt to hound Montmorency until he procures the office for du Val; “I pray that you would not rest in this, but always solicit him so that I can obtain my request from him, and that from time to time, I may hear from you what he responds.”148 Frustrated by her inability to move Montmorency to act by direct letter, Mary uses another letter to enlist Popincourt as her proxy to lobby him in person. Again Mary offers prayers and promises to remember the act of kindness, but her letter contextualizes this act as the latest in a long history of collaboration. Popincourt, after all, was the childhood friend Mary so desired to bring with her to France, and whose presence Louis absolutely refused to permit. Fourteen years later, the two women continued to maintain their friendship, their letters demonstrating how early modern women could translate affection and gifts into avenues of political action. Such networks of female influence are also at work in another, earlier set of Mary’s letters, this time on behalf of a young man accused of a crime in England. On September 28, 1519, Mary wrote Wolsey reminding him that the last time they had seen one another, she had asked him to intervene in the legal case against Anthony Savage. Several members of the Savage family were caught in a conflict with the king over local autonomy, corruption, and rights of sanctuary; E. W. Ives notes that at least sixty-seven different indictments had been made against several Savage men by February of 1517, including murder, riot, and abuse of authority, among others.149 Mary became involved at the behest of Anthony’s sister Susan, whom Mary describes as “my trusty and wilbelovid sarvant.”150 Based on Wolsey’s promise, Mary arranged for Susan to bring Anthony to her so that she could send him to appear before the Cardinal. In this fashion, an act of patronage on Susan’s behalf involves Mary directly in the legal system. Mary’s letter to Wolsey demonstrates that she lost none of her rhetorical skill in the four years since the marriage scandal. Blending the political with the religious, she reminds him that this will be “Amerytorius dede to be Rewardyd of god.”

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 140

2/18/2011 3:50:48 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

141

Weaving together evidence of her past service (by arranging Savage’s surrender) with the promise of future loyalty, she pledges that Wolsey’s help will “bynde me at Altymes” to do his pleasure. Four months later, Mary writes again, noting that she is “so bolde to desire you of your goodnes to have hym in your good remembraunce And to have remors and pitie unto hymm in this bihalff.”151 Carefully she affirms her trust in the Cardinal; she only writes again because the lawsuit has cost Savage everything, “to his utter undoing wherby he is so farr enpoverisshed that he hath not wherby to lyve nether without somme gracious remedy.” These words create a careful appeal to pathos that simultaneously flatters the Cardinal; he has the power to rescue someone from utter ruin. Whether Mary’s support made the difference is impossible to know, yet in May of 1520, Savage received his pardon.152 Regardless, Mary’s intervention at the request of her serving woman remains an interesting example of the power of women’s networking. Additional evidence suggests other examples of Mary’s occasional involvement in legal affairs. When her servant George Hampton was arrested in France, for instance, he wrote to Humphrey Wingfield begging him to let Mary and Brandon know, since he was in the country on their business when he was apprehended, locked in chains and kept under guard, to his heavy expense.153 Eventually Hampton was freed, since he traveled to France for them on later occasions, although exactly what actions were taken on his behalf are unknown.154 In 1527, Brandon wrote Wolsey on behalf of Sir Thomas Empson, who had been subpoenaed, to ask him to delay his request for Empson’s appearance. Brandon cites Mary’s needs as justification for Wolsey’s forbearance; they were visiting Empson because they had business nearby, and “if he shuld so shortly resort unto londonn it shuld be to the said ffrensshe quene and me great lak.”155 His assumption that Wolsey will bow to Mary’s needs, seemingly a small matter, nonetheless reveals the subtle ways Mary’s influence could reach further than one might anticipate. Taken all together, these examples demonstrate Mary’s lifelong concern with exerting influence on behalf of her servants and friends. From her return home in 1515 to as late as 1532, there are records of rewards for those who did Mary service in some fashion.156 Such evidence indicates that patronage remained the prerogative of even a dowager queen. Always the “French queen,” she continued to exercise and augment her royal authority wherever possible by actively participating in the economy of favor and influence that dominated in sixteenthcentury Europe.

A (Dowager) Queen’s Intercessions In the interlude Godly Queen Hester, which tells the story of the biblical Esther, the title character’s uncle Mardocheus gives her advice about the duties of queenship: Breake not the course that queenes have hadde In this noble region most part of all, They have aye bene good, and none of theym badde, To their prince ever sure, just and substanciall And good to the commons when they dyd call By mekenes for mercye, to temper the fyre Of rigors justice in fume or in yre.157

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 141

2/18/2011 3:50:48 PM

142

The French Queen’s Letters

Mardocheus argues that the primary responsibility of a queen is to act as an intercessor on behalf of the people, someone to temper the king’s justice with mercy. The playwright later gives Hester the opportunity to exercise this power by staging her petition to King Assewerus to spare the Jewish people from the machinations of his councilor, Aman. After Hester makes her impassioned plea, King Assewerus bids her “Stande ye up Lady, and approche ye neare / your petition we graunte it gladlye” (fol. F2r). Portraying a woman’s plea for help and a monarch’s ready assent, Hester depicts a queen’s petition as a powerful means of ensuring justice. Scholars such as Greg Walker and David Bevington have already demonstrated the political resonances of this play in Tudor England—how, written in the late 1520s, it became a critique of Henry’s divorce proceedings, the dissolution of the monasteries, and most of all, of Wolsey.158 Janette Dillon carries their observations about links between Hester and Catherine of Aragon further, examining the ways the play stages the transformation of Hester’s rhetoric of obedience into a voice capable of powerful influence on the king.159 Such topical allusions illustrate the strength of popular conceptions of the queen as an intercessory figure and suggest that she might wield considerable authority when acting within such a role. Whether Mary saw Hester performed is debatable, but she would have been familiar with the biblical queen.160 Aside from religious education, at Mary’s coronation in France, the figure of Esther was specifically invoked as a model for the Tudor princess to emulate.161 Esther’s story illustrated how a queen could perform extraordinary acts of heroism by working within traditional power structures; as such, she represented a pathway to power Mary could carefully exploit to wield significant influence, both at home and abroad. Mary followed Esther’s example directly on two occasions by interceding for her sister Margaret and for the apprentices sentenced to hang after the May Day riots of 1517. Just as Isabella of Naples had written Mary asking for her intervention, so too did Margaret, Queen of Scots, call on her sister for help. In the aftermath of James’s death at Flodden, Margaret had assumed the regency for her son. After she married Archibald Douglas, the Earl of Angus, her right to the regency was contested by the Scottish lords, many of whom favored John Stuart, the Duke of Albany, who was next in line for the throne, even though he had lived his whole life in France. While Mary was still Louis’s queen, Margaret wrote to her and Henry asking their assistance.162 Presumably Mary’s influence had some effect, for Louis, indulging English fears over Albany’s ambition, kept the duke in France. However, Francis followed a different course and Albany landed in Scotland in May, 1515. Margaret was forced to give him custody of the boys in July, and in late September she fled to England. Throughout this whole power struggle, Henry remained active on his sister’s behalf, even urging her to seek sanctuary in England with the boys. But history has nearly forgotten Mary’s attempts to help her sister, and the evidence indicating her intervention has been almost entirely lost. Nevertheless, on August 20, 1515, Albany makes reference to letters written to him by Mary and Henry about Margaret.163 On September 16, the Frenchman Villebresme writes that he carries letters from Albany to Henry, the unnamed lord he addresses, and Mary, whom he names as his mistress.164 A letter from Albany to Mary survives, noting that he had received her letters written the sixth of that month and thanking her for her continuing good wishes for her nephews.165 He also asks Mary to use her influence on Henry “to maintain the peace for the good of his realm and of

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 142

2/18/2011 3:50:48 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

143

this country” and promises to do likewise, as Villebresme will tell her in greater detail.166 Albany concludes by promising to take all that she has charged him to do under advisement and to do Mary all possible service. His courteous response to her concerns suggests that he takes her involvement seriously. Moreover, the duke adds a postscript in his own hand: “touching the queen of Scotland your sister, I swear to you by my faith that for my part I have done and will do her all the pleasure and service by me possible.”167 Writing in his own hand provides a measure of his seriousness as he attempts to reassure Mary of his good intentions. Although matters eventually worsened between Albany and Margaret, his correspondence with Mary nonetheless demonstrates his need to propitiate even a dowager queen, at least rhetorically, to preserve his chivalric name. When Margaret arrived in London the following May 3, Mary was present to greet her sister. It was the first time the three surviving Tudor siblings had been reunited since Margaret’s departure for Scotland thirteen years previously. Hall notes that Margaret “was receaved joyously of the kyng, the quene, the Frenche quene her syster, and highly was she feasted” (584). In her honor, Henry held two days of jousting and banqueting, after which Mary and Brandon went on a tour of Norfolk and Suffolk for the rest of the summer.168 Theodor Dumitrescu also notes that one of Henry’s music books commemorates the meeting with floral iconography—a rose for Henry, a marguerite for Margaret, and a marigold for Mary—celebrating the health of the Tudor line.169 The following spring may well have seen Mary and Margaret again united in an act of intercession, this time following the events of “Evil May Day,” 1517, when economic woes and anti-foreigner prejudice combined to produce a riot in the streets of London.170 News of spreading xenophobic bias and the danger to resident aliens caused the city to impose a curfew, yet attempts to enforce it caused tensions to boil over, and a mob of some 1,000 to 2,000 people, comprised largely of apprentices, proceeded to attack the homes of foreign craftsmen and traders.171 The crowds were eventually subdued and hundreds taken prisoner. Hall points out that their deeds were treasonous, since they acted against foreigners from lands that held truce with England (590). Stow mentions that 278 of the prisoners, some no more than thirteen or fourteen years old, were paraded through the streets with ropes around their necks (851). At least twenty of the leaders were hanged, drawn, and quartered, including John Lincoln and Dr. Bele, whose sermon had helped to provoke the crowds. About 400 of the prisoners, including eleven women, would ultimately be pardoned after an elaborate clemency spectacle staged by Henry and Wolsey, who waited with the Dukes of Suffolk and Norfolk, together with several other lords, all arrayed in their best. The prisoners were brought before them, and Wolsey exhorted Henry to forgiveness; when the king refused, the prisoners all begged for mercy. Wolsey spoke on their behalf again, and this time Henry acceded to the request.172 Accounts of the rioting and its aftermath vary, but two of the sources also include queenly intervention. In his letter to Vigo Da Campo San Pietro, Chieregato notes that it was a kneeling Catherine, with tears in her eyes, who first obtained their pardon.173 Stow’s account adds that Mary and Margaret joined her plea: “three Queenes, to witte, Katherine Queene of Englande, and by her meanes Marie the French Queene, and Margaret Queene of Scottes, the kings sisters, (then resident in Englande) long time on their knees before the king had begged their pardon, which by perswasion of the Cardinall Wolsey . . . the king graunted unto them” (851). His is the only account to mention Mary and Margaret, yet

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 143

2/18/2011 3:50:48 PM

144

The French Queen’s Letters

both were at court at this time. Mary, seven months pregnant with her daughter Frances, had just returned from pilgrimage with Catherine to visit the shrine at Walsingham. It is logical to assume that Catherine would have asked her sistersin-law to appear at her side as Stow suggests, for if one queen’s intercession held great power, to have three would increase the rhetorical effect exponentially. Like Esther, the three queens, kneeling before Henry to plead on behalf of the youth of London, would save their people. Their involvement allowed Henry to project an image of power both at home and abroad while sparing the lives of hundreds of youths. The spectacle demonstrates how queens could exercise extraordinary influence even while remaining subordinate to the king’s authority. It has been easy to dismiss the concept of queenly power, to see women’s agency as buried beneath the weight of misogynist discourse or to ignore women’s authority in favor of the more powerful male monarch’s actions, but this episode reminds us to resist a narrative that suggests that because these women acted within patriarchal frameworks, their power was irrelevant. The families of those apprentices surely thought otherwise.

Mary and Anglo-French Amity/Discord In exploring England’s complicated relationship with France, Deanna Williams defines what she aptly refers to as the “French fetish” by suggesting that the English regarded France as object of both desire and revulsion from the Middle Ages through the sixteenth century.174 Noting the range of attitudes toward France expressed in literature and rhetoric, Williams argues that “by adopting French phrases and fashions, the English attempted to erase their difference from the French; conversely, English efforts to construct the French as radically Other tried to assert it” (15). Political policy reflected similar ambivalence; Henry preferred his alliances to be powerful enough to signify his consequence and assist in furthering his territorial ambitions, but not so powerful they threatened English supremacy. His policy therefore swung as would a pendulum; as Spain grew more powerful, England strengthened its French ties, but when France was in the ascendant, the English returned to their connection with Spain. As a result, Mary’s position was similarly fluid. After returning to England, she retained the title of the queen of France—with its attendant Francophilic overtones— yet safely Anglicized and subordinate to her brother’s authority. Emphasizing her status as the French queen preserved the memory of a triumphant alliance: the rhetorical union of the Tudor rose and French fleur- de-lis in Mary’s person. Therefore, when the English wished to project amity with France, Mary often took center stage with Henry at banquets and entertainments. At the same time, disputes over her dower revenue persisted throughout most of her life, providing the English with a ready excuse for hostility with France whenever policy shifted. The lingering aura of the lily became an integral part of Mary’s identity, allowing her to project different political messages as Henry’s political agenda (or her own) required. Mary’s inheritance remained a matter of contention even after her return to England. On August 20, 1515, four months afterward, Henry wrote Francis protesting French piracy, the Duke of Albany’s attempt to seize his nephews, and the refusal to send the jewels Louis gave to Mary. In that letter he deliberately refers to Mary as Francis’s “belle mere,” the language evoking the supposed filial tie between the French king and his sister.175 He then instructed his ambassador

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 144

2/18/2011 3:50:49 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

145

Richard Wingfield to thank Francis for his care of Mary, but, at the right time, to broach the matter of the jewels and plate. For his part Francis responded that he had been generous enough to Mary, considering how many debts Louis had left.176 Because the dispute might be used to inflame hostilities between the two countries, ambassadors from other realms noted the disagreement, and in January of 1516, Giustinian wrote the Doge that Henry and Wolsey wanted him to intervene with Francis on the matters of Scotland and Mary’s jewels.177 Over the years the matter of the jewels was dropped, but the payments on Mary’s dower were continually in arrears, a major issue for both Mary and Henry, who each possessed a vested interest in the money’s timely arrival. That money also became a matter of international import after Henry wrote to Charles of Spain to ask his assistance in the affair.178 Similarly, Henry also instructed his ambassadors to reach out to Maximilian and Margaret of Austria.179 What might seem a trivial matter to contemporary eyes was clearly an issue of importance for Henry in terms of his sister’s consequence and his own reputation for having defended her rights (not to mention his own wealth). On February 6, 1518, Francis wrote Henry that he had given orders for Mary’s rents to be paid, and in conjunction with the betrothal between Henry’s daughter and the dauphin, a settlement on Queen Mary’s dower was eventually negotiated in October, 1518, as well as a treaty establishing peace amongst all the major European powers.180 However, the underlying issue—that the installments could be halted at any time—remained. Although the Field of Cloth of Gold summit celebrated Mary as a link between nations, the amity was relatively short lived. As an indication of the initial peace, Mary’s ambassadors successfully negotiated the payment of her dower in 1521.181 However, relations soon deteriorated to the point of warfare once more as Henry considered pressing his claim to the French throne. Mary’s payments again fell in arrears, and in 1523, Thomas Cromwell delivered a speech in Parliament justifying the war and citing the injuries done to Mary in his reasoning.182 Ultimately, it was Brandon who led Henry’s forces in an invasion of France in the summer of 1523, but despite some early success, illness, inadequate reinforcements from the Low Countries, and logistical problems enabled Francis to prevent Brandon from reaching Paris, and the duke was forced to retreat. For the next year, the English vacillated between peace and war, yet Mary’s dower remained one of the causes of contention. On August 22, 1524, John Clerk, the English ambassador in Rome, wrote Wolsey that the Pope was working to settle matters regarding Scotland and Mary’s rights, but he urged the English to make peace without waiting for the resolution of these issues.183 Still, the French remained intransigent on the subject of the dower; on February 16, 1525, Francis’s mother Louise of Savoy echoed the French line regarding the Mirror of Naples, claiming that Mary was only entitled to the jewels Louis gave her if she also assumed his debts.184 However, Francis’s capture at the Battle of Pavia just over a week later altered the situation entirely. The French needed allies to recover their monarch, and as time passed, they began to take a more conciliatory approach toward the English. On June 9, acting as regent of France, Louise commissioned ambassadors to negotiate an alliance with Henry.185 For her part, once it became clear that Henry was leaning towards peace with Francis, Mary sought actively to revive the business of collecting her dower income. On August 3, she wrote to Wolsey, thanking him effusively for the help he had always given her and asking his and Henry’s assistance in furthering her

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 145

2/18/2011 3:50:49 PM

146

The French Queen’s Letters

affairs by writing letters on her behalf.186 The letter reveals that Mary remained politically aware and rhetorically gifted. For instance, her choice to write Wolsey to ask for Henry’s aid indicates her grasp of the minister’s influence on her brother. As in the Guildford affair, Mary notes that the bearer, George Hampton, will tell Wolsey more details than she could write and more, that Hampton will specify to whom Wolsey and Henry should write, ensuring that no one could intercept and discover the details of her complaints or plans. Furthermore, the letter employs many of the persuasive techniques Mary had used successfully in the past; she flatters the Cardinal’s vanity, noting that “my lorde in theis and in all others I evermore have and do put myne oonly trust and confidence in you for the Redres of the same.” Signaling her ongoing participation in the economy of political influence, Mary closes by renewing her commitment to Wolsey and promising him “my good mynde and herty prayer wherof ye shalbe assured during my lif to the best of my poer.” Finally, she also arranged for Brandon to write the same day to Wolsey seconding her request. His letter asks the same favor, yet although it was written by the same scribe that Mary used, his missive employs wholly different language from hers, indicating that the couple collaborated only on the concept, not the composition. Nonetheless, it represents a coordinated effort to achieve their mutual goal. Less than two weeks later, a truce between the English and the French was proclaimed throughout England, and by August 30, the treaties of the More were finalized, which included an agreement to pay an immediate sum on the arrears owed to Mary and then to resume biannual payments.187 Mary’s income came from several different places in France, including La Rochelle, Saintonge, Loudun, Montignac, Frontenac, Montpellier, Chinon, and St Jean d’Angely in the west, and Pezenas, Narbonne, Cabrières, Cessenon, Villeneuve, St. Andre, and Rocquemaure in the southeast.188 The distance between them made the dower difficult to administer, and with Mary and Brandon’s blessing, Wolsey agreed with Louise’s proposal to farm out the collection of the rents to Jean Joachim de Passano, the Sieur de Vaulx, for 58,000 crowns a year.189 However, Henry and Wolsey also suggested that Mary choose someone to oversee her interests in France. Accordingly, September 10, Mary wrote to Wolsey that she had selected Dr. James Denton, her chancellor, and Francis Hall, a servant who had already borne messages to and from Wolsey on this matter.190 Mary in fact sent Hall with this letter so that he might receive further instruction from Wolsey. In addition, she asked Wolsey to write to Louise and Philippe de Chabot, Seigneur de Brion, who had been appointed Admiral after Bonnivet’s death at Pavia. Demonstrating her willingness to court Brion, Mary notes that “in case the said Admyrall do advaunce mynn affayres, there as I trust he woll the rather for your sake / if there by any thing withinn my said dowery that may do hymm pleasur / your lordship shall ordre me theryn as ye shall think reasonable.” Here and elsewhere in the letter, Mary affirms her willingness to follow Wolsey’s direction, since he had always offered his “best advyse and counsaill in the same which I have alwayes gladly folowed to my great comfort and so entend to doo.” Having such confirmation of her loyalty provided further evidence of Wolsey’s power, that a queen would always follow his lead and trust him with her affairs. Such promises represented the kind of influence over Mary and Brandon Wolsey had hoped to establish by smoothing over the scandal of their marriage ten years before. Clearly their relationship was long and profitable to both sides.

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 146

2/18/2011 3:50:49 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

147

By that October, however, Mary sought to assume control over the collection of her dower, and Henry instructed his ambassadors in France to assist her.191 The records that follow are spotty, but apparently Mary appointed her secretary Nicholas de St. Martin to look into her affairs in France.192 St. Martin’s goal seems mostly to have been setting up authority for Mary’s servant George Hampton.193 After that, the dower revenues were evidently paid regularly. On August 8, 1528, Mary wrote Montmorency to thank him for all of the assistance he gave Hampton and for looking out for her affairs himself.194 She promised in exchange to do any favor he might require with “very good heart” (“tresbon cueur”), helping to pave the way for future cooperation as she practiced carefully the art of political charm. How much cooperation Mary gave the French is difficult to discern. But in October of 1525, when Henry instructed his ambassadors to assist Mary in gaining control of her income, he bade them remind Louise that Mary had always been an ally to France and deserved her help as a result. This note may simply be rhetorical in nature, but it may also suggest that Mary did take seriously her role as peacemaker between the two countries. And perhaps in response to Henry’s reminder, sometime between October and December of that year, the French ambassador Jean Brinon met with Mary and Brandon in Reading to deliver a speech asking for her help in preserving the friendship between England and France, especially now that Francis was being held captive. In his speech, he pointed out that French history teaches that whenever France was afflicted with internal faction or external warfare, then “God gave that hour to the ladies.”195 Citing the examples of Clotilde, Radegund, and Gille, he noted that France’s women always found solutions to even the direst problems. Drawing on those historical parallels, Brinon suggested that Mary was the latest in a long line of French queens called to such duty. Switching to recent history, he claimed that peace came to England and France through her beauty, gentleness, goodness, and virtue, that “you, madame, were the key.”196 Moreover, he praised her for serving that role even after Louis’s death, arguing that “you are one of the principal and best means of the continuation of this good and holy peace” and begging her to continue to use her prayers and “good and honest speeches” to reconcile Henry and Francis.197 Brinon’s speech constructs Mary as a powerful force advocating for peace. Brinon found Mary “good and agreeable” at their meeting in Reading.198 Although it was Brandon who made Mary’s official response via a Latin oration, he was effectively acting as her ambassador, making public reply in the same fashion that Wolsey might speak for Henry, yet work under the king’s direction. Moreover, since Mary and Brandon frequently coordinated their messages in letter writing, it is logical they did the same here for an oral speech. An English outline of the text survives, explaining that Mary told the ambassadors that she appreciated their pains in visiting and thanked God for moving the two kings toward peace.199 The language suggests that she constructed the issue as a family affair, since she referred to Henry and Francis as “the kynges highnes her dereste brother and the kynges highnes her son” (fol. 35r). In this fashion, Mary continued to practice the rhetoric of affection that she first employed to suggest a strong bond between Louis and herself, and by extension, their countries. She also noted that she will always pray for peace between the two lands, “whyche her grace ys moste bounden to desyre and pray for and So her grace hathe don and will do duryng her lyffe and all that ys possebill for her to do for the augmentyng and Incresyng of the same her grace shall not fayle to do her best.” Here the wording

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 147

2/18/2011 3:50:49 PM

148

The French Queen’s Letters

implies that Mary is aware that she symbolizes Anglo-French amity and more, that she claims the power to foster its growth. The oration closed by returning to the language of favors and influence. First, Mary offered her prayers both for Francis’s safe return and for God to bring more joy at his recovery than his absence caused sorrow. Such prayers were part of the system of gift exchange. Then, thanking the ambassadors for their help “concernynge her owne affairs,” Mary requested them to continue such aid in the future and promised “yeff therby anny thynge that her grace may do unto your pleasure in yt shalbe Redy at all tymes” (fol. 35v). By acknowledging their labors and vowing future service, Mary joined in the politicking and jockeying for influence so common at court. At the same time, she sent a clear message: she would participate in political exchange on behalf of peace but her price was a French pledge never to hold her dower revenue hostage again. After Francis was freed in March, 1526, Mary’s letter of congratulation contained a similar blend of self-interest and service.200 Expressing her relief that her prayers worked, Mary delicately hints to the king that she has effectively petitioned God on his behalf. Moreover, she claims that power for all women by observing that the ladies of England joined Henry and all the English lords in offering their pity and prayers for him. This statement also cleverly implies that Francis should recognize a debt to Henry too as Mary deftly suggests that Francis should be mindful the benefits of alliance with her brother. In addition, Mary employs strong maternal rhetoric by referring to herself as his mother and pledging “if it had been possible for me, by carrying part of your distress, to give you some relief, I would have done it with the best of hearts.”201 Her language imagines a strong bond with Francis, laying the foundation to ask him for future favors. Furthermore, Mary’s last lines thank Louise for her help while noting that “I will always have need in my affaires of your good grace.”202 Such a letter epitomizes Mary’s rhetoric as dowager queen as she builds her influence by trading favors, emphasizing the importance of ties of affection, and reminding her recipients of the implications of her royal status as the French queen. In this manner, throughout her life, Mary was able to craft rhetorical positions that allowed her to claim and exercise greater power.

Henry’s “Great Matter” and Mary’s Reaction The rhetoric of affection that underpinned much of Mary’s epistolary efforts served throughout most of her life as a means of negotiating power. Displaying certain feelings for each recipient facilitated any number of goals from finding patronage for her servants to solidifying alliances between rival kings. However, events of the late 1520s revealed a weakness in such rhetoric: that when family connections conflicted with politics, split loyalties rendered this avenue of persuasion much more difficult to employ. Henry’s efforts to divorce Catherine placed a terrible strain on Mary’s relationship with her brother from which it never fully recovered, and as a result, Mary spent less and less time at court. Mary had known and loved Catherine nearly all of her life. Some of the earliest records of Mary—Philip of Castile’s 1507 visit—show the two princesses talking, dancing, sitting, and traveling together. Throughout Mary’s girlhood, letters and chronicles demonstrate her participation at courtly events where Catherine was present. When Mary married Louis, Catherine accompanied her to Dover despite

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 148

2/18/2011 3:50:49 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

149

her own advanced pregnancy. In 1517, Mary and Brandon went on pilgrimage with Catherine to Walsingham, a shrine popular with medieval women, especially those petitioning the Virgin Mary for help bearing a child.203 Brandon reported to Wolsey that “such poor cheer as we could make her grace we did, with as good heart and mind as her own servants.”204 For Catherine, anxious to have another baby, her sister-in-law’s company must have been a most welcome distraction. In 1522, Catherine gave Mary a gold ring with a diamond shaped like a heart and surrounded by rubies.205 As further sign of their close connection, Mary fostered Catherine Willoughby, the daughter of María de Salinas, who had accompanied Catherine from Spain and remained the queen’s dear friend. Such details give every indication that Mary and Catherine were devoted sisters. One of Mary’s letters also suggests a deeply rooted affection between the pair. On September 9, 1516, Mary wrote to thank Henry for allowing Brandon to be at court and hinting that she trusted she would see him soon, all the while underscoring their familial bond. After praying Henry would receive his desires, Mary employs the rhetoric of affection further by most humbly prayeng yowr grace that I may be humbly Recommanded unto my most derest and beste belowyd suster the quene grace and to the quene off Scottys my welbelowyd suster \ trowstyng that I sha[l] be asserteyned frome yowr grace off the prosperows estate and helthe of my enterly belowyd nyce the prences to home I pray god to send long lyfe.206

Certainly this is crafted to remind Henry of their close ties, but tellingly, Catherine is her “most derest and beste belowyd suster” In fact, in the original version of the line, Mary started to write “suster” after “most derest,” then crossed it out so that she could add “beste belowyd.” In so doing she demonstrates the depth of her affection for Catherine. Margaret, by contrast, is “my welbelowyd suster.” Proclaiming love for them all would project Mary’s message of loyalty to Henry, but that doesn’t negate the likelihood of it also being the truth. Furthermore, the letter suggests that Mary was similarly close to her namesake, the Princess Mary, her “enterly belowyd nyce.” Demonstrating the concern of a loving aunt, Mary asks for updates on the little princess’s health and offers her prayers for the baby’s long life, a matter of particular political concern as well as familial love. The affection continued; records demonstrate they exchanged gifts, such as the gold pomander Mary sent her niece for New Year, 1518.207 Furthermore, Garrett Mattingly claims that as the princess grew, Catherine persuaded Mary to join a group of noblewomen studying Latin to serve as an example for her daughter.208 During this period, such actions illustrated Mary’s affection while simultaneously satisfying the political need to maintain a strong connection with a young woman who might be her father’s only heir. Such balancing of politics and family was necessary; Mary’s influence in England was still largely based on the health of her relationship with Henry. Letters such as the September, 1516 missive helped to sustain that relationship and to signal observers that their affection persisted. Both of the extant letters Mary wrote to Henry after her return from France close with the phrase “yowr lowyng suster mary quene off france.”209 In this fashion she continued the pattern of a lifetime; that phrase, variant spellings aside, differed only during the worst of the crisis with Brandon—when the word “humble” was added to “loving”—and in

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 149

2/18/2011 3:50:50 PM

150

The French Queen’s Letters

the letter composed by a French secretary on behalf of the priest Vincent Knight, which employed the word “bonne” or “good” instead.210 The genuine emotion Mary almost certainly felt is nonetheless a secondary purpose, subordinate to the need to proclaim her allegiance to Henry publicly using the strongest possible language. For the most part, after returning to England, Mary resumed her place in Henry’s good graces. From naming his new ship after Mary in 1515 to bestowing on her and her husband five manors confiscated from the Duke of Buckingham in 1522, Henry signaled his regard for his younger sister.211 Throughout their lives, the pair exchanged gifts each New Year—in 1532 for example, he gave her two gilt pots and Mary reciprocated with writing tables and a gold whistle.212 Occasionally Henry’s eagerness to see Mary and Brandon led him to command their attendance, as in Easter of 1518.213 There were occasional minor rifts between the couple and Henry; an undated letter reveals that the king wrote Wolsey, “I wolde yow shulde make good wache on the duke off suffolke,” as well as Buckingham and other members of the nobility, lest they conspire against him.214 Brandon’s marriage made his ambitions naturally suspect, but before long, he had won back Henry’s trust. In addition, Gunn notes that Brandon’s French connections could occasionally threaten the success of Henry’s negotiations with Francis or prove embarrassing; his point is equally applicable to Mary and fits the pattern of the ebbs and flows of her attendance at court from 1515 to the mid-1520s.215 Henry’s all- consuming desire for a male heir, coupled with his passion for Anne Boleyn, changed that pattern altogether. From Mary’s perspective, initially Henry’s fixation on Anne must have seemed harmless enough; he had obviously indulged himself with mistresses before. She knew Anne; the young woman had been part of her suite in France, and the two danced together in a masque for Shrove Tuesday at Wolsey’s York Place in 1522, Mary taking the part of Beauty and Anne that of Perseverance.216 But that Henry’s infatuation with this Boleyn sister would lead to divorce would have seemed utterly implausible. No record exists of Mary’s first reaction to hearing the news of Henry’s intent to end his marriage, but his choice placed her in a terrible position. As her king, brother, and longstanding ally, Henry commanded her first loyalties, yet Mary also loved Catherine and must have rebelled at the idea of such reward for eighteen years of faithful marriage. Complicating matters further, should the Princess Mary’s legitimacy be placed in doubt, Mary’s son Henry, the Earl of Lincoln, would sit even closer to the throne. Mary’s initial solution was to withdraw from court as much as possible, offending neither side and preserving possible avenues of influence. Celebrating the latest Anglo-French treaty at Greenwich with Catherine and Henry on May 7, 1527, just ten days before Wolsey would open proceedings for a secret hearing on the divorce, Mary seems to have left the tension-filled court fairly quickly, for she was at Butley Abbey by July and stayed through August, nor is there any indication that she returned to London until the following June.217 Instead Mary remained on her estates. Apparently she tried to persuade Brandon to follow suit, since on April 18, the duke wrote Wolsey explaining that he although he wished to please Henry, who had commanded him to come to court for St. George’s Day, he would not be there in time, given his duty to put “my poer huusehoolde” in order, an inability to endure so swift a ride, and “that the tydinges art somewhat hevy unto the frenshe quene.”218 Here Brandon employs the rhetoric of family affection to cushion his refusal. However, his choice to cite Mary’s displeasure at his absence

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 150

2/18/2011 3:50:50 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

151

is telling; since Brandon had frequently left Mary to attend on her brother without issue in the past, this demurral suggests the cause lay in the difficulties between Catherine and Henry. Mary would eventually go to London in June of 1528, but there is no evidence indicating whether she saw Henry or Catherine, and by August she had traveled to Wingfield Castle, and from thence to Butley Abbey, where she remained from September to November.219 Initially Brandon also visited the abbey, since the monk-chronicler notes their foxhunts and picnics in nearby woods; their idyll was ended when a messenger from Henry arrived ordering Brandon’s attendance at court.220 Mary followed more slowly, arriving in London for the Christmas season where, in Hall’s words, she found Catherine “made no great joye of nothing, her mynd was so troubled” (756). That holiday season was likely the last time Mary and Catherine ever met face to face. Whatever methods Mary used to attempt to persuade her brother to abandon his course failed; over time her indignation grew, and with it, her vocal condemnation of Anne Boleyn, whose influence was also expanding. Eustace Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador (and Catherine’s ally), wrote Charles V on December 13, 1529, that when Henry held a banquet to celebrate the elevation of several members of Anne’s family, Anne sat next to the king, bypassing Mary and the two Duchesses of Norfolk, which he characterizes as an event unprecedented in England.221 Such details were not trivial; Chapuys indignantly claimed the seating as evidence that Anne was virtually a queen that night, lacking only a wedding ring to attest to her position. For her part, Mary cannot have enjoyed this usurpation that indicated the waning of her own and Catherine’s influence. Henry would eventually further undermine Mary’s standing by demanding that she give some of her jewels to Anne. As the dowager queen who so carefully safeguarded her authority, Mary was surely outraged at being forced to surrender these tangible symbols of wealth and power to someone who had merely served in her train in France.222 For his part, Brandon seems largely to have trod a similar path to Mary’s—silent cooperation followed by increasing condemnation—but unlike Mary, although he criticized Henry’s actions, he submitted to royal commands. Although long the Cardinal’s political ally, he seems initially to have appreciated Wolsey’s discomfiture at Henry and Anne’s hands; J. J. Scarisbrick notes that he and Norfolk likely both chafed at the cleric’s power and wealth, and so relished the opportunity to balance the scales.223 Nevertheless, the Spanish ambassador Chapuys charts the duke’s growing dissatisfaction with Henry’s decisions regarding Anne. For instance, on May 10, 1530, Chapuys noted Brandon’s long absence from the court and speculated that it was due to Anne’s displeasure with the duke’s attempts to discredit her.224 A year later, on June 6, Chapuys reported that Mary and Brandon were vehemently opposed to Henry’s actions but they feared to act openly. He also observed that Brandon had met with William Fitzwilliam, Henry’s treasurer, to discuss joining together “to dissuade the king from his folly.”225 Henry’s increasingly defiant stance towards the Pope must also have exacerbated Mary’s worries over her brother’s behavior. There is no indication that Mary was interested in Protestant reforms; on the contrary, she remained a staunch Catholic throughout her life. Her time spent living in the Butley Priory provided a demonstration of piety as much as refuge from Henry’s antics. Mary enjoyed an excellent reputation amongst the monks; the Augustinian canon Thomas Paynell outlines her virtues fulsomely in dedicating his works to her, the second of which was his translation of Erasmus’s De contemptu mundi, an encomium to monastic life, no less.226 A 1535 description of the Brandons’ chapel at Suffolk Place included six

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 151

2/18/2011 3:50:50 PM

152

The French Queen’s Letters

statues of saints.227 Moreover, nine religious images of silver and gilt were placed on the altar at their son Henry’s christening, together with relics and a crucifix.228 Mary’s funeral procession included four banners depicting the Trinity, the Virgin Mary, St. Elizabeth, and St. Charlemagne.229 Clearly she had no qualms about religious iconography, although attacks on such images were already occurring in England.230 Mary also owned at least three Books of Hours, one of which she gave to Henry in 1530. Beautifully illuminated and containing paintings by the artists Jean Bourdichon and Jean Poyet, the book had been a gift from Louis.231 Surely its opulence made it a suitable royal gift, but Mary may have also hoped its provenance would have reminded Henry of his earlier French triumph through her or perhaps that its religious purpose might serve as a subtle reminder of where Henry’s true allegiance was due. Mary’s Catholicism manifested in more than just images and prayer; at the same time that her brother was beginning his power struggle with the Pope, she and Brandon were submitting to papal authority by requesting a dispensation clarifying the validity of their marriage. On August 20, 1529, much to Mary’s relief, a papal bull was exhibited declaring that despite Brandon’s tangled marital history, he was free to wed Mary in 1515, ensuring their offspring’s legitimacy.232 Designed to secure her children’s place in the succession as well as their inheritances, the bull also ipso facto demonstrates Mary’s respect for the Catholic Church’s judgment regarding issues of marriage, a power her brother would soon challenge directly. As matters swiftly escalated, Mary became more forceful in her attacks on Anne, and by extension, Henry’s decisions. In 1532, the Venetian ambassador Carlo Capello reported that Mary’s “insulting words spoken against the Lady Anne” led to a violent quarrel between the men serving the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, as a result of which Sir William Pennington, one of Brandon’s men, was murdered while in sanctuary at Westminster.233 Henry sent Cromwell to prevent Brandon from retaliating and the murderers were pardoned.234 Nonetheless, in July, Norfolk’s retainers informed Cromwell that Brandon’s men were still bent on retribution. Although Brandon reproached Cromwell for telling the king, saying that he would have controlled his men, nonetheless Capello’s conclusion that “the matter of the divorce becomes every day more difficult,” seems most apt.235 Henry was informed of the unrest between his two dukes’ households, and about ten days later, he went to visit Mary and Brandon.236 The visit may have been friendly, but the timing suggests that Henry probably also hoped to smooth over the discord. Prefiguring Shakespeare’s prince governing two warring households in Verona, while Henry may have issued an edict against further killings, he ultimately left the underlying resentments untouched. Mary and Brandon grew more firm in their denunciations, whatever discussions they held with Henry on the subject of his choice for queen. Their public disapproval continued. On September 5, Chapuys informed Charles that Brandon had publicly denounced Henry’s plan to bring Anne to meet with Francis in Calais that October. As a result, a furious Henry chastised the duke severely.237 Nevertheless Brandon was ordered to attend and he complied, although the circuitous way he traveled to Calais led Chapuys to speculate whether he intended to be late on purpose to miss the meeting.238 Despite Henry’s orders that the nobles bring their wives, Mary seems to have rejected his order; Capello reports that the French queen “it is said, has adamantly refused to go.”239 Nor was she present at the ceremony titling Anne Marchioness of Pembroke

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 152

2/18/2011 3:50:51 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

153

before Henry left for Calais; Elizabeth, the Duchess of Norfolk, refused to attend as well, leaving her daughter to carry Anne’s train and leaving Anne without any English noblewomen of high rank in attendance.240 Perhaps most tellingly of all, neither Mary nor Brandon attended Henry and Anne’s banquet with the French ambassadors on March 8, 1533, even though both were in London for their daughter Frances’s wedding to Henry Grey, the Marquis of Dorset, and even though, as Chapuys notes, Brandon had been specifically told to go.241 Mary’s refusal to participate in an event involving the French was a clear message of her displeasure; ever since her return to England, she had endorsed her brother’s diplomatic efforts with the cachet of her rank and the charm of her person, all the more so when Anglo-French relations were at stake. To boycott these events, thus denying Henry the support of the French queen, was the greatest possible political statement she could make. Ultimately, Mary was far more outspoken in her support of Catherine than Brandon could afford to be. Retaining the protection of her status as dowager queen and Henry’s sister, she could boycott the court with greater impunity. Nothing shows this more clearly than her refusal to remain in London to celebrate Anne’s coronation that May, while Brandon was forced to help run the ceremonies. His commitment had to remain with the King. But Mary, like a number of other aristocratic women, thought Catherine’s rights sufficiently important to defy her brother’s wishes. Barbara Harris notes the extraordinary choice of women like Mary, such as Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, Gertrude, Marchioness of Exeter, Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, and Anne, Lady Hussey, who challenged patriarchal authority to champion a queen.242 Their motives were probably complex and varied, as Harris observes, but surely common to them all was a defense of wifely prerogative, that after decades of dedicated service to her family’s goals, a woman should not be discarded by her husband’s whim.

The French Queen’s Final Ceremony Sometime in the 1520s, an ailing Mary wrote Henry an affectionate letter remarking that she hoped coming to London to see him would help to improve her health. Proclaiming her love for him, she writes, “I wolde be the gladther a grete dele to com thether by cause I wold be glad to se yowr grace the wyche I do thyncke long for to do for I have bene a grete wyle out of your syte and now I trost I shal not be so long a gene for the syte of your grace ys to me the grettys comforte to me that may be possybel.”243 Although the letter is undated, some scholars have chosen to see this as her last sentimental letter to Henry.244 Mary’s reference to it having been “a grete wyle” since she had seen Henry makes her later years a plausible, but not a definite choice. Rather than a farewell, it is more likely to have been the kind of letter intended to sustain their relationship, an epistolary reminder of their mutual affection. She had always styled him as “her greatest comfort”; since her power depended so much on his affection, it was logical for her to continue that rhetoric. What this letter also provides is further evidence that Mary’s health was often a matter of concern. She had a physician in her household from its first establishment, and records survive indicating she received regular doses of medicine from the ages of eight to thirteen.245 In France in 1515, she requested Henry to allow her to retain the services of his surgeon because she was experiencing a toothache and “the mother,” a kind of respiratory ailment that made it difficult to breathe.246 It

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 153

2/18/2011 3:50:51 PM

154

The French Queen’s Letters

was a ploy for sympathy but also an indication of ill health. In 1518, Brandon wrote to inform Wolsey that Mary could not leave the court because she had been taken by an ague.247 Then in 1520, he noted that “her olde dissesse in her side” was giving her trouble, suggesting that the illness was a recurring one.248 This latest flare-up led Brandon to write Wolsey asking that Mary be allowed to lodge at the court since she desperately needed to go to London; “she has taken such a phantasy that she thinks that she should not do well, without she should come up to London for remedy; insomuch that she weeps every day.”249 For her part, Mary wrote Henry that she has been “very secke and ele ates [ill at ease],” telling him she planned to come to London for “yf I shold tary her I am sowr I shold never assperre [aspire] the sekenys.”250 Her tone was calmer than Brandon’s, but there is no doubt of her urgency. Brandon’s letter proclaims his concern and affection for his wife. There is a panicked quality to his letter that exceeds the necessity of persuading Wolsey to allow Mary a berth at court. In her final illness, although Henry had appointed Brandon to oversee the details of Anne’s coronation, he took the time to hurry home to see Mary. He was in London in early May to organize the coming ceremonies, but he must have left soon after, for Chapuys notes Brandon’s absence from a meeting on May 7 and states that he and Norfolk were at their country residences.251 How long Brandon remained with his ailing wife is unknown, but by May 29, he had to be back in London for the coronation. As of June 17, Brandon was in London.252 At some point after that in June, Brandon went home to Westhorpe, for in a letter to Thomas Cromwell written after Mary’s death, Brian Tuke notes Brandon’s return to court.253 Whether caused by the recurring ailment or a new sickness, Mary died on June 25, 1533 between seven and eight o’clock in the morning at home at Westhorpe.254 If Brandon was still at court, probably all of her children were with her—Eleanor and Henry at the least. Mary was only thirty-seven. The chronic pain she felt may have had nothing to do with her death, the precise cause of which is unknown.255 Early modern chroniclers attributed her passing to grief for Catherine; one sixteenth- century Spanish account claimed that “the sorrow caused by the sight of her brother leaving his wife brought on an illness from which she died.”256 However, although contemporary diagnoses have included speculation about cancer or tuberculosis, without details of her symptoms a conclusive finding is unlikely.257 Because of her withdrawal from court life, Mary’s passing made little diplomatic stir. Marin Giustinian, the Venetian ambassador in France, found her death newsworthy enough to mention to the Signory, but for the foreign ambassadors Chapuys and Capello, it signified only the end of her dower payments: that Francis would regain (and Brandon lose) 30,000 crowns a year.258 By contrast, for the French, Mary’s death meant the loss of their queen, however briefly she had ruled. Ambassador Jean de Dinteville, the bailly of Troyes, wrote twice to Francis to ensure he received the news and noted that Mary “was well loved in this realm and equally by the people of this city, who regret her loss greatly.”259 Francis asked Dinteville to express his condolences for the loss of “my beautiful sister the queen” and to tell Henry that the news made him “greatly displeased and grieved for the trouble and grief that I am sure that my good brother and perpetual ally the king of England is suffering and bearing.”260 Whether Francis’s expression of solidarity in sharing Henry’s grief at her death was genuine or rhetorical, Mary thus facilitated one last diplomatic exchange between the rival kings shaped by her relationship to them both.

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 154

2/18/2011 3:50:51 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

155

At the same time, Mary’s rank meant that elaborate ceremony had to be staged for her funeral. Daily masses were said while her body, embalmed, lay in state in the chapel at Westhorpe until the preparations could be finished; Francis arranged for a French herald to travel to England to assist in making sure the French queen was properly honored.261 As Edward Muir argues, like weddings, funerals became “public manifestations of the solidarity and power of the great patrician families.”262 Therefore, on July 9 and 10 at Westminster Abbey, Henry held elaborate separate funeral services, complete with an empty hearse decorated with Mary’s arms and four heralds carrying banners with images of the Virgin Mother, the Trinity, St. Elizabeth, and St. Charlemagne.263 Mary’s actual interment took place at even greater expense and with greater ceremony almost a full month after she died. A manuscript in the College of Arms notes the detailed preparations: the numbers of candles and torches, the charges for painters to make elaborate banners, the plans to deck the horses with full trappings of mourning with gold escutcheons of France and England, etc.264 Her body was covered with black cloth of gold decorated with a white cross and “uppon the same the Image of the quene appareled in her Robes of Estate with A crowne uppon her heade in her heare as Apperteynthe and the Sceptre in her Right hande,” yet always arranged to show black velvet hangings as well (fol. 104v). The hearse was decorated with her arms, black silk with fringe of black and gold, as well as her motto, “La Voullente de Dieu me suffet” (“the will of God is sufficient for me”).265 The banneroles, small flags depicting coats of arms, included two with the arms of England and France, one with King Edward IV and Elizabeth of York, and one whose arms went unrecorded (fol. 105v). By placing her grandparents’ arms in such prominence, the heralds emphasized Mary’s Yorkist ancestry, as well as Mary’s personal status as princess of England and queen of France. Similar attention was paid to the mourners and procession. By heraldic custom, Claire Gittings notes, “the mourners had to be of the same sex as the deceased, which meant, of course that no one could act as mourner for their own spouse.”266 Therefore, Frances Grey acted as the chief mourner for her mother’s funeral, not Brandon. Escorted by her brother and her husband, her train carried by the Lady Lovell, Frances went into the chapel to hear mass, followed by pairs of eight noblewomen, including her sister Eleanor, then the rest of the procession.267 After mass, six gentlemen carried her body to the chariot, with six knights formally holding a canopy overhead. The procession to the Abbey at Bury St. Edmunds included hundreds of people: 100 poor men to hold torches at Bury; the Dean and the Almoner to do ceremonies in each parish; followed by gentleman in pairs organized by Rougecross and Guisnes Herald; then knights, barons, and lords; then the Garter and Clarencieux Kings at Arms in Henry’s arms preceded Lord Powis, Mary’s chamberlain; the chariot with Mary’s body; four more heralds bearing banners of the Trinity, the Virgin, St. Elizabeth, and St. Charlemagne; Frances, accompanied by her husband and her sister’s fiancé Henry, Lord Clifford; then the eleven noblewomen mourners stipulated by Mary’s rank; and many more lords, ladies, knights, members of the local gentry and of the household, many of them Brandon allies and relatives.268 Reaching the abbey at two in the afternoon, they were met by the abbot and a procession of monks; again the knights brought Mary’s body into the abbey and a funeral mass was celebrated by fourteen clergymen. During the mass, four ladies brought palls of four yards of cloth of gold, Mary’s daughters each contributing five yards. The officers of Mary’s household broke their staffs of office “with great wepinge and lamentacion . . . caste them into the Sepulture,” and the abbot of St. Benets gave a sermon on the theme of the

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 155

2/18/2011 3:50:51 PM

156

The French Queen’s Letters

Stella Maris, the star of the sea, and one of the incarnations of the Virgin Mary evoked at Mary’s wedding to Louis so many years before.269 Afterward, alms and food were distributed to the poor of the town, while the nobles went to dine and the banners were left in the abbey honoring the dead. All this elaborate ceremony served not just to mourn but to underscore Mary’s status, and by extension, that of her family. Her children yet remained as inheritors of her royal blood. Mary’s tomb lay in the Abbey at Bury St. Edmunds, undisturbed by the dissolution of the monasteries that began three years later. The nineteenth- century historian Nicholas Carlisle attributes that to Henry’s affection and Brandon’s influence. Howbeit, he notes that her rest was not undisturbed; in 1731, thinking the tomb only a cenotaph, church officials thought to move it. On discovery of the body they initially let it rest, but in 1784 the entire tomb was moved to St. Mary’s Church on the abbey grounds.270 Richardson notes that the new epitaph reads, “Sacred to the Memory of Mary Tudor, third daughter of Henry VII of England, and Queen of France.”271 However, William Fellows, who was Marleon de Aye Herald to Brandon, records Mary’s original epitaph: “Here lyethe the Ryght noble and excellent prynces Mary frenche qwyne Suster to the moste myghtty prynce kyng Harry the viii of that name and wyff to Lews kyng of france whyche all hyr lyff tyme contynuynge pesyble [peaceable] qwyne dowager of france and in hygh favor and estymacion of bothe the Reaulmes was afterward maryed to charles duc of Suffolk.”272 In this fashion, she was memorialized as the “peaceable queen,” beloved of England and France as a result. Given that so much of Mary’s political effort went towards maintaining that peace, it is a fitting conclusion.

Reading Mary For all the books Mary read or could have read, there is one for which her ownership can be documented. To be more precise, there is one kind, but three books: all of them Books of Hours, all of them gifts—from Louis, from her sister Margaret, and from a member of the Bourchier family, probably her chamberlain in France, John Bourchier, Lord Berners.273 These three manuscript books offer one final lens through which to examine Mary’s life, to consider how her books provide a new perspective on the ways she displayed and exercised queenly status and authority. Mary’s receipt of these books demonstrates her participation in the system of gift exchange that forges a strong connection between the different parties involved.274 Although Lisa Klein notes that the exchange usually reifies hierarchy by confirming the relative social status of the giver and the recipient, in two of these instances, all participants were royal.275 As a result, these exchanges highlight the social aspect of gift exchange; here the books serve more as affirmation of a bond than as a way to influence future favors. Louis’s gift, a magnificently illuminated manuscript book with paintings by Bourdichon and Poyet, was a symbol of his regard appropriate for Mary’s new status as queen of France.276 Eventually Mary in turn gave the book to Henry as a reminder not just of their sibling love but also of the political triumph they had shared in establishing that marriage. The second book was a present from Mary’s older sister Margaret, who received it as a wedding gift from either Henry VII or James IV. Probably she sent it to Mary on the occasion of her wedding to Louis.277 Margaret wrote the following note on one of its pages: “Madame I pray your grace / Remember on me when ye / loke upon thys boke / Your lofing syster / Margaret” (5). Such marginalia emphasizes

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 156

2/18/2011 3:50:52 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

157

the sisterly connection, even though the sisters in question were rulers of different countries. Moreover, Eamon Duffy points out that because messages like this one were written on such expensive and sacred books, they “carried a solemn aura of sincerity,” the words sometimes outlasting the feelings.278 In both these instances, the book becomes a signifier not only of familial love but also of political connection, since alliances depended so greatly on the rhetoric of affection between rulers united by marriage. Berners’s present, the third Book of Hours, falls into the category of a subordinate offering a gift in hopes of generating good will, possibly with an eye to future favors. It is a smaller volume, 160×110 mm, but richly illuminated on parchment, with sixteen surviving miniatures surrounded with elaborately decorated borders as well as thirty-nine historiated initials.279 It would have been an appropriate gift for a queen’s status. Looking at the example of Elizabeth I, Klein notes that although gift-giving represents an attempt to gain influence, because the queen was the intermediary through which God’s grace flowed to her people, the balance of debt was perpetually shifting; “gift-giving is therefore a social exchange which, unlike economic exchange, entails unspecified obligations” (468). Mary was a dowager queen, yet still royalty; by giving her the book, Berners would presumably have hoped to symbolize his regard for her, thus maintaining a sense of shared community.280 At some point, the book passed to Frances Grey, née Brandon. Either Mary herself gave it to her daughter—face to face or in her will—or Frances received the book after her mother’s passing. Regardless, Frances’s ownership suggests the book’s value as a memorial of her mother and the bonds of love that existed between them. Rebecca Krug speculates that women may have used Books of Hours to teach their daughters to read, especially because of their repetitive content and usage.281 If true in this instance, the book would become an especially important marker of that maternal connection. Following her mother’s example, Frances also employed the practice of gift giving by making a present of the book to Lady Florence Clifford in 1550. The two women shared a family connection—Clifford was Frances’s sister Eleanor’s stepgrandmother by marriage—so that Frances was also using her mother’s book to maintain social connections. More importantly, it becomes clear that the book’s provenance added greatly to its cachet. Someone, presumably Clifford’s son, wrote the following note in a neat italic hand: “This booke is the Ladie Florence Cliffordes, by the gift of L.Frauncis Dutchesse of Suffolk: Doughter to Marie the Frenche quean, who was soomtyme owner of this Booke A.D. 1550.” After skipping down a space, he added, “Good Maddame forget not in your prayers to god, your welbelovid Soon the wryter hereof” (fol. 32r). This marginalia blends sacred with the profane as the writer combines his desire for his mother’s prayers with the detail of the book’s prestigious former owner. In this fashion, Mary becomes a kind of commodity, her name the source of pride that the new owner possesses a tangible link to royalty. The very mention of her name adds value to the book, especially since, as Duffy points out, such books were meant to be read publicly.282 This marginalia demonstrates that Mary’s title remained a symbol of power and authority, so that even after her death, she was read as a figure of cultural significance. Mary’s Book of Hours enables us to think not only about how she is read by later generations, but also reveals clues about how Mary may have read the book. Like any Book of Hours, Mary’s copy glorifies the Virgin Mary; hers includes

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 157

2/18/2011 3:50:52 PM

158

The French Queen’s Letters

specifically the Hours of the Virgin, two versions of the prayer “Salve Regina,” devotions to Mary, the seven joys of Mary, a hymn to the Virgin, and the Fifteen Oes, the series of prayers about the Passion given to St. Bridget.283 The sixth of the Oes includes the moment when Jesus passes the care of his mother to St. John; the prayer begins, “O blessed Jesus, loving king and friend in all things, remember the sorrow you suffered when you hung piteously naked upon the cross and all your friends and acquaintances stood before you. You found no comfort in any of them except your blessed mother. She stood with you faithfully and truly through the time of your bitter Passion.”284 Such lines exalt women by honoring their steadfast loyalty and love. Furthermore, Krug notes that Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth of York commissioned the Oes’s publication by Caxton (108); therefore Mary may have found special resonance in these prayers. Too, the comparisons made between Mary and the Virgin as peacemakers during her arrival in France may have also given Mary an added affinity for prayers venerating the Virgin Mother, celebrating her as a symbol of women’s power and peace. Furthermore, Mary’s book emphasizes other holy women in addition to the Virgin. It includes as many suffrages, or petitions, to women saints as it does to men, including Anne, Bridget, Helen, Mary Magdalene, Sitha, Katherine, Barbara, Dorothy, Mildred, Margaret, Ursula, and Petronilla.285 The collects include prayers to thirty-two virgins, including Cecilia, Frideswide, Edith, Winefred, Gertrude, Othilia, and Wilgefortis, as well as repeating some of the women petitioned in the suffrages (fols. 158r- 68v). Although the book was not created for Mary, but rather one of the Bourchier family, nonetheless the plethora of prayers to women may have been what suggested the book as an appropriate gift for the French queen.286 Mary’s book also contains numerous images of women. There are full page illustrations of St. Bridget and the Annunciation (fols. 46v, 59r). In the scene of England’s patron St. George, a woman kneels in the background praying for him, modeling the role a woman might play in a knight’s success, while the painting of the resurrected Lazarus shows a woman supporting him as he sits up out of the grave (fols. 16v, 169v). The historiated initials include ten women saints and nine depictions of the Virgin Mary (fols. 47v-129r, passim). Krug notes that such initials would have engaged the reader, encouraging her to consider not just the text but to meditate on the story suggested by the image; when such images include women reading, they model a tradition of scholarship and learning open to the female sex.287 Several historiated initials in Mary’s book include women reading or holding books: Sts. Helena, Sitha, Mildred, Ursula, and Petronilla (fols. 47v, 49v, 53v, 55v, and 56v). There is also a miniature of St. Bridget writing with an angel hovering over her shoulder (fol. 46v). Given that many of these women are depicted with the red-gold hair for which Mary was famous, it would have been that much easier for her to feel a connection to their deeds, to see in them a kind of role model, not in the sense of behavior to emulate but rather in terms of patterns of thinking about women’s gifts and achievements. A woman reader could find a feminine community amongst these pages. Whether the Virgin Mary cuddling the Christ child, St. Sitha tending the sick, St. Petronilla multi-tasking with her book in one hand and a ladle in the other, St. Mildred learning in a convent school and becoming a nun to serve the poor, St. Catherine out-debating the scholars, or even St. Margaret defeating the dragon, the women in this book demonstrate the far-reaching nature of women’s power and the range of activities to which readers could aspire (provided

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 158

2/18/2011 3:50:52 PM

Figure 3

St. Ursula and the Virgins, from Mary’s Book of Hours. MS 349, fol, 55v. By kind permission of the Provost, Fellows and Scholars of The Queen’s College Oxford

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 159

2/18/2011 3:50:52 PM

160

The French Queen’s Letters

their dragons were metaphorical). St. Ursula, depicted here with her 11,000 virgins in tow, would testify to the strength of women’s social networks. Even St Wilgefortis, also known as Uncumber, was present, she of the ability to assist the dying by relieving them of the burden of their sins, not to mention the more subversive popular tradition that held the saint could help unhappy wives become unencumbered of their husbands.288 Examining this book more closely reveals that Mary would have been comfortable with the idea of women exercising power in subtle and variegated ways. Just as Mary may have found models of female empowerment in her Book of Hours, so too examining her book should remind scholars that women have always found a variety of ways to exercise authority and claim agency, that power does not exist in binaries—the haves versus have-nots—but rather is exercised in degrees, and that a sixteenth-century queen, like Ursula with her 11,000 virgins, did not exist in a vacuum, but flourished in a community. So too Mary’s actions need to be read within the context of early modern court politics. Understanding how much her influence depended on her relationships with Henry, Louis, and Francis explains why Mary worked so hard to flatter and to please them—to wield greater power in her own right. Furthermore, Mary’s example demonstrates how a queen’s power was not a steady, consistent force, but rather one that shifted with events, from the princess preparing to impress dignitaries with her skills to the ruling queen inspiring poets to see in her a quasi-divine capacity to make peace to the dowager queen who sought quiet ways to influence her people’s lives for the better. When Mary read her Book of Hours, she engaged in an act of ordinary piety, a daily prayer. Nevertheless, according to religious teaching, if she prayed the Fifteen Oes every day for a year, fifteen members of her family would be released from purgatory. In this fashion, ordinary acts produce extraordinary results. From almost the moment of her death, writers began to fashion Mary as the heroine of an epic love story, claiming that true love triumphs over aged kings, selfish brothers, and even court politics. Such versions are troubling because of what they suggest about women’s influence; fairy tale love stories end their happy-ever-afters with the wedding and erase the history that follows. To paint that picture obscures what is truly important about Mary’s life—the ordinariness of her power. She used her influence to exercise personal control over her choice of husband, to impress a French ambassador with displays of English magnificence, to intercede on behalf of riotous apprentices, to reward loyal service with patronage. It is her generosity, grace, intelligence, and charm coupled with extreme determination that makes Mary such an extraordinary example of early modern queenship, not the mere fact of her marriage to Brandon. Ironically, romantic depictions of Mary isolate her; in these versions she is selfishly focused wholly on her own desires, heedless of the peril in which she places herself and Brandon. Such portrayals make it all too easy to marginalize Mary, to ignore her as a minor figure of little historical consequence. We would do better to read a different story, to look closely into the texts Mary herself created to consider what elements shaped the fashioning of an early modern queen. These texts vary widely in nature, from the use of her coat of arms on buildings to the period chronicles that depict how she stood on a platform to claim the homage of her new countrymen, from clothing tailored to French or English fashion as her need required to the legal indentures that codified her debts while underscoring her relationship to the king. Above all, Mary’s letters provide an invaluable resource, one that demonstrates how fluid was her identity,

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 160

2/18/2011 3:50:56 PM

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

161

how ably she used different rhetorical techniques to tailor her persona to meet the demands of each audience and occasion. Reading these texts reveals the political queen, the one who blended epistolary techniques with chivalry and the rhetoric of affection in order to help her brother forge a strong marital alliance between England and France; to secure her own desires by marrying a husband of her “own mynde”; to seek advantage for all those who merited her protection; and to try to preserve the peace her first marriage established. Only by accepting that all of these actions are political can we begin to understand the exercise of early modern queenship, the implications of women’s roles in the power brokering of the sixteenth century, and most of all, just what it truly meant for a woman to craft and assume the manifold identities signified by the name “marie the frenche quene.”

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 161

2/18/2011 3:50:56 PM

9780230620308_06_ch04.indd 162

2/18/2011 3:50:56 PM

A PPENDIX: M ARY’S LETTERS

T

his appendix contains an edition of Mary’s extant manuscript letters. Wherever I could, I have attempted to give the reader as close a sense of the material letter as possible by indicating page breaks, layout, handwriting, and so forth (except for the line breaks in the letter’s body). I have regularized Mary’s use of i/j and u/v and silently expanded abbreviations, but otherwise have maintained her original punctuation and capitalization. Mary’s hand is distinctive, neither secretary nor italic, though it is very similar to her brother’s. In Man and Monarch, David Starkey suggests that both Tudors learned their script from their mother, Elizabeth of York (8, 83). Unlike her brother, Mary seems not to have minded writing letters—many of these are entirely in her own hand, which I have indicated with the designation “holograph.” Those letters written in another hand but which bear her signature have been labeled “autograph.” Unless otherwise indicated, the addresses written on the verso of the autograph letters are in the scribal hand. The letters contained in the British Library’s Cotton collection suffered greatly from a fire in 1731; my conjectures for missing words are supplied in brackets. Occasional footnotes are marked with numbers in brackets. A key to textual symbols follows: [x] * *...* x ^x^

editorial additions indicates lost words indicates several lost words deleted in original added in original

All transcriptions are mine, their presence included by generous permission of the libraries listed in each headnote. I have also provided translations of the French letters, striving to render Mary’s language as literally as I could. My translations conform to contemporary rules for punctuation and capitalization. 1. M ARY TO M ARGARET OF AUSTRIA, DUCHESS OF SAVOY A PRIL 13 (1510–1513) Morgan Pierpont Library. Rulers of England Box 02, Henry VIII, no. 33a. Autograph. Italic and secretary hands. Paper. 210 × 184 mm. The wax seal remains on the righthand side of the verso page, showing a diamond shape with faint traces of a design within; there is a vaguely floral shape with swirls in the center, and a K (for Karolus?) to the right. If it is an initial “K” presumably there was once an “M” for Mary on the left. Mary’s signature comes 25 mm below the body. For dating, see Chapter 1, note 175.

9780230620308_07_app.indd 163

2/18/2011 3:53:02 PM

164

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

[Italic hand] a Grenewich le 13 avril [Secretary hand; large initial “M”] Madame mabonne Tante leplus humblement que faire le puis a vostre bonne grace me recommende. Et ay receue le patron des habillemens dont les dames se vestent avecques vous que vous mavez envoyee du quel Je vous remercie beaucoup Car de long temps Jay eue desir a scavoir comment les atours et habillemens que se usent pardela me sieroynt et maintenent que Je les ay essaiez Je me contente moult fort deulx ./ Esperant quil me sera chose assez facille de laisser ceste acoustumee mode de vestir quant Je me trouveray avecques vous . vous requirant ma bonne Tante quil vous plaise depar moy faire mes humbles recommendacions a mon trescher et tresayme Seignieur mon sieur le prince / Auquel et a vous ma bonne tante / dieu doint bonne vie et longue et eureuse prosperite enn toutes voz affaires Escript a Grenewych le xiije davril [modern hand] (1508–1513) [Mary’s hand] Vostre bonne niesce Marie pryncesse de castelle [verso] A madame La Duchesse de Savoye Ma bonne Tante At Greenwich the 13 April My lady, my good aunt, the most humbly that is possible I recommend myself to your good grace. And I have received the pattern of the clothes that the ladies are wearing near you that you have sent to me for which I thank you greatly. Because for a long time I have had the desire to know how the ornaments and clothing that are used over there will fit me and now that I have tried them I am greatly contented with them. Hoping that it will be an easy enough thing for me to leave my accustomed way of dressing when I will find myself with you. Requiring you, my good aunt, that it will please you to make my humble recommendations from me to my very dear and well-loved lord my lord the prince, to whom, and to you, my good aunt, God give good life and long and happy prosperity in all your affairs. Written at Greenwich, the 13th of April. Your good niece Mary princess of Castile To my lady the Duchess of Savoy, my good aunt 2. M ARY TO LOUIS XII AUGUST, 1514 © The British Library Board. MS Additional 34208, fol. 27r. Modern copy of holograph letter. Paper, ruled with lines spaced 13 mm apart. 197 × 321 mm. The scribe left some blanks where presumably s/he could not read the writing,

9780230620308_07_app.indd 164

2/18/2011 3:53:02 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

165

since after the first space the word “tenire” is written in the margins as if conjecture. I have marked such gaps as [*]. There is also a small illustration of a single fleur-de-lis in a box in the place I have marked +. The Lady Mary to Lewis 12 King of France No 8485 all in her own hand Monsour bien humblement a votre bonne grace je me recommande. Jay recu les lettres qu’il vous a pleu mescripre de votre main, et ouy ce que mon cousin le duc de Longueville ma dit de votre part, en quoy jay prins tres grant joy, felicite, et plaisir, dont et de l’honneur quil vous a pleu me faire, me tiens a jamais votre [*] et obligee, Et vous [+] aimerry le plus cordialement q faire puis. Et pour ce que par mon cousin vous entendnez come toutes choses ont pris [missing] fin et conclusion, et le tres singulier desire que jay [*] vous faire plus longue lettre pryant [* . . . *] monsour noter createur vous donner sainct et long vie. dee la main de votre humble compagne Marie My lord, very humbly I recommend me unto your good grace. I have received the letters which it has pleased you to write to me with your own hand, and heard that which my cousin the duke of Longueville tells me of your part, in which I took very great joy, felicity, and pleasure, of which and of the honor that it has pleased you to do me, I consider myself ever [bound] and obliged [to you]. And [*] thank you the most cordially that I can. And because by my cousin you will hear how all things have taken [*] end and conclusion, and the very singular desire that I have to [*] make you a longer letter, praying [* . . . *] Sir our creator give you healthy and long life. by the hand of your humble wife, Mary 3. M ARY TO LOUIS XII AUGUST, 1514 © The British Library Board. MS Additional 34208, fol. 28r. Modern copy of holograph letter. Paper, ruled with lines spaced 13 mm apart. 197 × 321 mm. Monsieur Humblement a votre bonne grace je me recomande. pour ce que le Roy mon S[eigneu]r et frere envoye presentement par devers vous ses ambassadeurs, jay desire & donne charge a mon cousin le Conte Worcestre vous dire aucunes choses de ma part, touchant les fyansailles dentre vous et moy en parrolle de present. Si vous supplie Monsieur le voulloir en ce ouyr et croyre come moy mesmes, et vous asseure Monsieur come je vous ay dernierement escript et synifie par mon cousin le duc de Longueville, que la chose que plus je desire & souhaite pour le jourdhuy sest dentendre de voz bonnes nouvelles, sante et bonne prosperite, ainsi que mon de cousin le Comte de Worcestre vous saura a dire plus a plain, il vous plaira au surplies Monsieur me mander et comandez voz bons & agreables plaisirs pour vous y obeir et complaire par laide de Dieu qui Monsieur vous doint bon vie et longue. De la main de votre bien humble compagne Marie.

9780230620308_07_app.indd 165

2/18/2011 3:53:03 PM

166

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

My lord, humbly to your good grace I recommend myself. Because the king my lord and brother sends presently his ambassadors to you, I have desired and charged my cousin the earl of Worcester to say to you some things on my part, touching the betrothal now spoken of between you and me. So I beg you, my lord, to desire to hear and believe him in this as myself, and I assure you, my lord, that as I wrote you last and signified by my cousin the duke of Longueville, that the thing that I most desire and wish for today is to hear good news of you, your health and good prosperity, as my cousin the earl of Worcester will know to say more fully. It will please you moreover, my lord, to send for me and command your good and agreeable pleasures in order for [me] to obey and please you in this by the help of God who keep you, my lord, in good life and long. By the hand of your very humble wife, Mary 4. M ARY TO LOUIS XII AUGUST/SEPTEMBER, 1514 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Vitellius C.XI, fol. 156r. Holograph. Paper, containing a watermark of a hand touching a 5- petaled flower. 194 × 197 mm. Across from her signature in the lower left corner of the letter is a wax impression of her seal, a coat of arms containing the arms of France and England, crowned; outside the coat of arms is a fleur- de-lis on the left and a Tudor rose on the right. 25 mm separate the signature from the body. Monsieur bien humblement a votre bonne grace Je me Recommende monsieur Jay par monsieur levesque de lencolne receu les tresaffectueuses lettres quil vous a pleu naguaires mescripre qui mont este a tresgrant joye et confort vous asseurant monsieur quil nya riens que tant Je desire que de vous veoir Et le roy monsieur et frere fait toute extreme diligence pour mon alee de la la mer qui au plaisir de dieu sera briesve vous suppliant monsieur me vouloir ce pendant pour ma tressinguliere s consolacion souvent faire scavoir de voz nouvelles ensemble voz bons et agreables plaisirs pour vous y obeir et complaire aidant notre createur qui vous doint monsieur bonne vie et longuement bien prosperer de la main de votre bien humble compaigne Marie A monsieur My Lord, very humbly to your good grace I recommend me. My Lord, I have by my Lord Bishop of Lincoln received the very affectionate letters that it has pleased you lately to write to me which have been to me a very great joy and comfort, assuring you, my Lord, that there is nothing more that I desire than to see you. And the king my lord and brother makes all extreme diligence for my passage beyond the sea, which by the pleasure of God will be brief. Beseeching you, my lord, to please me in the meanwhile, for my very singular

9780230620308_07_app.indd 166

2/18/2011 3:53:03 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

167

consolation, often to make known news of you, together with your good and agreeable pleasures, in order for [me] to obey and please you, aided by our Creator, who give you, my Lord, good life and long, prospering well. By the hand of your very humble wife Mary To my Lord 5. M ARY TO HENRY OCTOBER 12, 1514 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 257r. Autograph. Secretary hand. Postscript and signature in Mary’s hand. Paper, containing a watermark of a pitcher. 184 × 279 mm. 25 mm separate Mary’s postscript from the body of the letter. [My] good brother as hertly as I cann I Recomaund me [to your] grace · marvelyng moche that I never herd from you syns [th]e departynge so oftenn as I have sent and wrytten to you [an]d now am I left post a lone inn effecte / for onn the mornn next after [th]e maryage · my chambirlaynn with all other menn servauntes wer dischargd [an]d in lyke wyse my mother guldeford with other my womenn and maydyns [e]xcept such as never had experiens nor knowlech · how to advertyse or gyfe [m]e counsell yn any tyme of nede / which is to be fered more schortly then your grace thought at the tyme of my departynge / as my mother guldeford cann more playnly schew your grace then I cann wryt / to whom I [be]seche you to gyve credens / And yf hit may be by eny meane possible I humbly Requyr you · to cause my seyd mother guldeford to Repayr hither t[o] me agaynn / for ells yfe any chauns happe other then weale I shall not [k]nowe · wher nor of whom to aske any good counsell to your pleasure · nor [y]et to myn own proffitt / I merveill moche that my lord of northfolke [w]old at all tymes so lyghtly graunt every thynge at ther Reqwestes here I am weale assured that when ze know the trouth of every thynge as my mother guldeford cann schew yow / ze wold full lyttyll have thowght [I] schold have benn thus intreated // that wold god my lord of zorke [h]ad comm with me yn the romme of my lord of my lord northfolke for [the]n amm I sure I schuld have bene left moch more at my hert[is ease] then I am now / and thus I byd your grace fare weale with [*several words lost] as ever had prince / and more hertis ease then I have now [From Ab]bvile the xiithe daye of octobir [Mary’s hand] [* g]yef g credens to my mowde[r G]eldeford be yowr lowyn[ge] s[u]ster Mary quene [of Fra]nce [Fol. 257v] To the kynges grace my kynd and lovynge brother

9780230620308_07_app.indd 167

2/18/2011 3:53:03 PM

168

Appendix: Mary’s Letters 6. M ARY TO WOLSEY OCTOBER 12, 1514

© The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol.146r. Autograph. Secretary hand; postscript in Mary’s hand. Paper. 191 × 279 mm. 38 mm separate Mary’s postscript from the body of the letter. [I rec]omaund me unto you as hertly as I cann / and as sche th[at hath not been] Intreated as the kynge and you thought I schuld have ben / for [* t]he mornn next after the maryage all my servauns · both menn & womenn [*] discharged · Insomoch that my mother guldeford was also discharg[ed *]y whom as ze knowe the kynge and zou willed me yn eny wyse to be [* c]owncelled // but for eny thynge I myght do ynn no wyse myght I have [* a]ny g[r]aunt for her abode here / Which I assure you my lord is moche to my [*] discomffort / besyd meny other discomffortis · that ze wold full lytell hav[e] thought // I have not zet seene yn fraunce eny lady or Jentillwomann so necessary for me as sche ys · nor zet so mete to do the kynge my brot[her] service as sche ys / and for my part my lord / as ze love the kynge my broder and me // fynd the meanes that sche may yn all hast com hi[ther] agaynn · for I had as lefe lose the wynnynge I schall have yn fran[ce] as to lose her counssell when I schall lacke it which is not like long to be Required / as I am sure the nobill menn & Jentillmenn cann schew you more thenn becometh me to wryte yn this matter // I pray you my lord gyfe credens forther to my moder guldeford yn every thy[ng c]oncernynge thys matter // and albehit my lord of northfollke ha[th] nethyr deled best with me nor zet with her at this tyme // zet I pra[y] you allwayes to be good lord un to her / and wold to god my [*] had benn so good to have had zou with me hither ·/ When I h[* . . . * lo]rd ofe northfolke / And thus fare ze weale my lord // Wryt[ten at Abbev]ile the xijthe daye of octobir [Mary’s hand] [M]y lord I pray yow gyve credens to my [mother Guldef]ord yn my sorows she have delyv[er * . . . *]te yowr on whyl I lefe Mary [*] [Fol. 146v] To my lovynge frend Tharchebischop of Zorke 7. M ARY TO HENRY OCTOBER 18, 1514 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/9/147. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper. 197 × 292 mm. There is a watermark but it is difficult to discern; it appears to be a box with an angel shape to the left and perhaps a fleur-de-lis on the right. Traces of the wax seal remain on fol. 147v. 10 mm separate Mary’s signature from the body of the letter. My most kynde and luffyng brother I hertely recommende me unto you. pleaseth it yor grace to undyrstond that my lord the kyng hathe instantly desiryd me to wrytt unto you / that it wold please you for hys sak and myn / to sende unto my lorde Dercy to delyver francois Descars uppon a resonable ranconn[1] unto you / and that it wold please yor grace to pay hys ranconn for the tyme / and that hee myght be delyverd unto yor grace / ye shortly to have the monay agaynn after

9780230620308_07_app.indd 168

2/18/2011 3:53:04 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

169

that word is off hys delyver[an]ce / or ellys hee not to retrne as hydder./ ffardermor the duk off brytan[2] / otherwise callyd the dolphyn[3] hathe dyverse season movyd me to wrytt to yor grace for the seyde francois for as moche as hee is on of his servantes / the wiche to doo I made hymm promysse and to the dowke off langwylle[4] alsoo / for I assure yor grace hee they made me & the nobyl men off my company gret cher from boleynn / forthe as the dowk off norfolk / the lorde markes with other nobil menn cann informe yor grace Thes premisses consideryd I beseche yor grace to desyer the lorde Dercy to delyver uppon as litil a ranconn / as resonably may be / hys seyd prisoner./ for as I am credibly informyd hyr / hee is but a pore gentilmann. Now sumwhat I wold that my lord the kyng / the bothe dukes to whom I am moche bownde shuld thynk hee shuld be the mor favord for my sak. / when this mann is delyverd I beseche you to sende worde by the bryng[er o]ff ys or som other what is ranconn is wiche I pray god may be resonable & litell Whoo preserve yor grace amenn ffrom Abevyll[5] the xviii day off Octobr by yor very luffyng Suster [Mary’s hand]

mary quene of france [Fol. 147v]

To my most kynde and lovyng brother the kynges grace off Inglond. 1

Ransom The Duke of Brittany, (later Francis I) 3 Dauphin 4 Duke of Longueville 5 Abbeville 2

8. MARY TO HENRY OCTOBER 20, 1514 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/9/148. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper. 197 × 298 mm. Traces of the wax seal remain on the verso side. 6 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. My most kynde and lovyng brother I hertely recommende me to you Certifiing your grace that sins my departing from you I have sent you divers letters and as yett I have hadde no maner word from your grace wherof in party I marvail considering that certayn letters be over from your grace hyther I trust thowgh I be farre from that you that your grace wyll not forgett me but that I shall schortly here from you whereof I hartely desire you. And where as I have wryttyn on to your grace towching the deliverance of a prisoner whyche my lorde darcy hath I beseche you that hys ransom myght be as favourable and drivyne to as small a somm as myght be / assuring your grace that trusting that favour schould be schewyd hym my lord the kyng at the instance of the duc of bretayn and the duc of longueville hathe sent thys weke hys letters on to boulayn that divers of your subjectes beyng prisonners theyre schould be deliverd after the custum of the see As for ij hunderd marke or ijC and l markes I heresay they wold be content to gyve

9780230620308_07_app.indd 169

2/18/2011 3:53:04 PM

170

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

or ellys to continu styll Whyche I trust to goodde and you schall not be Who preserve your grace amen Wryttyn at Abbeville the xx day of October [Mary’s hand]

by yowr lowyng suster marie [Fol. 148v]

To my most kynde and luffyng brother the kyng off Inglond. The frenche quenis lettre 9. M ARY TO WOLSEY NOVEMBER 13, 1514 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/9/158. Autograph. Secretary hand. The print is greatly faded. Paper. 194 × 289 mm. Traces of the wax seal remain on the fol. 158v. 13 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. My lord I hertely recommend me on to you Desiring you for my sake to be goud lord to my servant Johnn palsgrave and provyde for hym som livyng that he may continu at scole yff he hadde ben retaynyd in my service I wold have done for hym gladly my sellff but sins he was put owt off my service I wyllyd hym to cum to paris party by cause I trust veryly that you wyll provyde for hym he may be abyll to continu and allso bycause I intend my sellff som what to do for hym howe behytt by cause my estat ys not yett made I wott nott howmyche I shall be gladde to helpe hym that he schall not nede to cumm home praying you hertely not to forget hym Commendyng you my lord to gode Who have you in hys keping at paris the xiii day off november [Mary’s hand]

mary quene of france [Fol. 158v]

To my lord of yorke [a different secretary hand labels the letter] The Quene of France to the Cardynall sent from parys 10. M ARY TO HENRY NOVEMBER 15, 1514 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Vespasian F.III, fol.50r. Holograph. Paper. Cropped to approximately 127 × 203 mm. 13 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. my most kynde and luffyng brother I Recommande me unto yowr grace as hertely as I can & I thank yowr grace for yowr kynde letters & for yowr good counsell the wiche I trust to our lord god I shall folow every day more & mor how luffyngly the kyng my husband delyth with me the lord chambyrlaynn with other of yowr ambassadors can clerly informe yowr grace whom I beseche yowr grace hertely to thank for ther grett labors & paynys that they have takyn to as hyr for me for I

9780230620308_07_app.indd 170

2/18/2011 3:53:04 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

171

trust they have made a substancial & a perfect ende as towchyng myn almoner I thank yowr grace for hym of hys demeaner hyr yow yowr grace shalbe informyd better than I can wrytt as knowthe our lord Jhesu who preserve yowr grace amen from parys the xv day of nowebere by yowr luffyng Suster mary mary [Fol. 50v] to the kyng my broter 11. M ARY TO HENRY NOVEMBER 17, 1514 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol.148r. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper, containing a watermark with a hand outstretched touching a 3-leafed plant. 159 × 282 mm. Marks at the bottom center of fol. 148r are all that remain of the wax seal. [Mon trescher] seigneur & frere tres humblement a votre bonne grace me Recommande [*] priant que aiez pour Recommande ung povre prestre nomme messur vincent knyghte qui a tousjours continue & demoure en votre Royaume depuis quil y vint avec feu notre trescher Seigneur & pere que dieu absalle Le povre homme a fait plusieurs voyaiges pardeca durant les guerres par Recommandement de votre conseil estrout / Lequel luy avoit promis ung benefice · Lesquelz nont pas fait · Mais en lieu de ce faire lauroient fait mettre en prison · en votre ville de tournay vous y estant · Ou Il fut sept sepmaines / et dela mene prisonnier en angleterre · L ou Il reste en votre prison du flit sans nulle cause veritable par le space de quarante & quatre sepmaines / et a tout perdu et despendu le scien esdites[1] prisons ainsi que avons este deuement advertie par aucune de noz especiaulx serviteurs d’angleterre / Mon trescher seigneur & frere Je vous prie de Rechief / et en faveur de moy en Recompense des services quil nous a faitz et a ce quil soit plus curieux de prier dieu pour vous & moy Luy faire quelque bun / Et vous plaise commander levesque de yorke · quil luy face Rendre son argent et luy soit gracieux · Et en ce faisant fres grant charite & aumosne Priant notre Seigneur dieu mon treshonnore seigneur & frere quil vous doint bonne vie & longue A Paris le xvijme Jour de novembre par vostre bonne seur [Mary’s hand]

Marie [Fol. 148v]

[A mon] trescher seigneur & frere [le Roy d’] angleterre My very dear lord and brother, very humbly to your good grace I recommend myself. Praying that you will accept a recommendation of a poor priest named Mr. Vincent Knight who has always lived and remained in your realm since he came there with our late very dear lord and father whom God absolve. The poor man has made several voyages over during the wars by recommendation of your privy council. But instead of doing that, they have caused him to be put in prison in your city of Tournay, while you were there, where he remained seven weeks and then was brought as a prisoner to England where he remains in your prison of the

9780230620308_07_app.indd 171

2/18/2011 3:53:05 PM

172

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

Fleet without any genuine cause for the space of forty four weeks and has lost and consumed all his property in the said prisons as we have been duly advertised by some of our especial servants in England. My very dear lord and brother, I pray you once again, for my sake and in recompense for the services that he has done for us and that he will be more desirous of praying to God for you and me, to do him some good. And you will please command the Bishop of York that he will return his money and will be gracious to him and in doing so you will give great charity and alms. Praying our Lord God, my very honored lord and brother, that He will give you good life and long. At Paris, the 17th day of November by your good sister Mary To my very dear lord and brother the King of England 1 This word is barely legible; I follow the eighteenth- century scholar LouisGeorges- Oudart-Feudrix de Bréquigny’s speculation in Volume II of Lettres de Rois, Reines, et Autres Personnages (Paris,1847), 548.

12. M ARY TO WOLSEY JANUARY 10, 1515 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Vespasian F.XIII, fol. 281r. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper, containing a watermark of the Tudor rose with a long stem. Cropped to 234 × 173 mm. . 13 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. My nanne good lord I Recomend me to yow and thankyng yow for your kynde & lovyng letter dyssyryng yow of your good conteneuans and good lessones that yow hathe gyffen to me my lord I pray yow as my trust ys in yow for to Remembr me to the kyng my brother for sowche Causses & bessynes as I have for to do / for as now I have no nother to put my trust in but the kyng my brother & yow as and as yt shall ples the kyng my brother and hys Counsell I wolbe horderd & so I p pray yow my lord to show hys grace seying that the kyng my howsbande ys departed to god of whos sole god pardon and wher as yow a y vyse me that I shulde macke no promas my lord I trust the kyng my brother & yow wold nat Reken in me souche Chyldhode / I trust I have so horderd my selfe so sens that I Came hether / that I trust yt hathe ben to the honar of the kyng my brother & me sens I Come hether & so I trust to contenew yff ther be any thynge that I may do for yow I wold be glade for to do yt in thys partes for yow I shalbe glade to do yt for yow no more to yow at thys tyme but Jhesus preserve yow wretten at pares the x day of January [modern hand] 1515 [Mary’s hand] by yowr lowyng frend mary quene of france [Fol. 281v] To my lord of yorke

9780230620308_07_app.indd 172

2/18/2011 3:53:05 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

173

13. M ARY TO HENRY JANUARY, 1515 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 255r. Holograph. Paper. 2 pages. Fol. 255: 174 × 279 mm; fol. 256: 171 × 279 mm. Fol. 255 has a watermark of a unicorn. Fol. 256v shows traces of wax seal. Occasionally I include Green’s suggestions in Letters for missing words wherever her reconstructions fit the size of the gaps. [My o]wn good and most kynde brother [I re]commande me un to yowr grace [*]nck thancke yow for the [goo]d and kynde letters that yow [ha]ve sent me the wyche has bene [th]e grettys comfort myt be [t]o me yn thys worlde dessyr[i]ng yowr grace so for to conten[ue fo]r thyr ys nothyng so grete astor [to] me as for to se yow the wyche y wold very faynne have the tyme [fo]r to com as I trowst yt shal be shal or eles I wold be very [sor]ry for I thyncke every day a [thou]sande tele I may se yow sere wer [as] yowr grace sendes me worde [th]at I will not gefne no credens [to th]ym for no seut nor for no [othe]r words that shale be geve[n *] sere I promes yowr grace [tha]t I never mayde thym [pro]mes nar no nother fo[r the]m nar newer wil[l until] that I knoke yowr [grace’s mind] for no body alyfe for [your grace] ys al the comforte t[hat I have] yn thys worlde [and I tru]st yowr grace w[ill not] [Fol. 255v] fele for I have nothy[ng in the] worlde that I do car for [but] to have the good and [kind] mynd that yowr gr[ace] hade ever towarde me a[nd] I besewche yowr grace for [to] contenwe for thyr ys [al] my trowst that I ha[ve] yn thys worlde sere for the letter that your grace ded sende me by [M r] clynton wher as yow send w[ord] that I shold provyde me slfe t[o make] me redy for to com to yowr [grace] sere and yt tewre to mor[row] I wold be redy and as for [my lord] of sowffolke and ser Recharde[1] [and] docter weste thyr be to or [three t]hat cam from the ky[ng m] y sone for to have [brought the]m to hym be the way [as they] cam hetherwarde [and so hinder]yde thym commyng [hith]er warde that thys [* . . . *] as I trowst shal co[nclude in] [Fol. 256r] a day or to and thyn [let me] knoke yowr mynd [fo]r and wan I dow I wel do [the] r after sere I beseche yowr [gra]ce for to be good lord to master Jhon yowr sowrgeone for [m]y sake and that yow wel [no]t be mest contentyd with hym [fo]r hys long tarryng here [with] me for I bare hym an [ha]nd that yowr grace wer contented that he shold be here with me a wyl [a]nd so I pray yowr grace [*] to gefne hym lefe for to tarry here awyle with me for by case I am very ele dessyde of the tothe acke and the mother with all that som tym I w[ot] nat wat for to do bwt a[n I] myt se yow I wer ha[ppy No] mor to yow at thy[s time] bwt I pray good [send] yowr grace good h[ealth] by yowr lowyn[g] [Fol. 256v] marie [Upside down on same page] To the kynges grace my brother thys be delyveryde 1

Sir Richard Wingfield

9780230620308_07_app.indd 173

2/18/2011 3:53:05 PM

174

Appendix: Mary’s Letters 14. M ARY TO HENRY L ATE JANUARY/EARLY FEBRUARY, 1515

© The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 253r. Holograph. Paper. 2 pages. Fol. 253: 180 × 260 mm; Fol. 254: 180 × 256 mm. There is a watermark of the Tudor rose with three more flowers sprouting from the stem. Fol. 254v shows traces of wax seal. The closing comes 25 mm below the rest of the letter. [My] most kynd and lovyng [brother I re]commande me unto yowr gr[ace I] wolde be very glade to here that [your] grace wer yn good helthe and p[eace] the wche shold be a grete comfort to m[e] that yt towele plese yowr grace t[o] sende mor of tyne to me than y[ou] do for as now I am al owt of co[m]fort savyng that al my trowst y[s] yn yowr grace and so shale be dew[ring] my lyfe ser I pray yowr grac[e] that yt towele plese yowr grace to be so good lorde and brother to [me t] hat yow wel sende ow hither a[s s]one as yow may posybel het[her t]o me ser I be sche shiche yowr gra[ce t]hat yow wel kype all the prom[ises t]hat yow promest me wane I [t]ake my leffe of yow be the w[ater s]yde ser yowr grace knokethe w[ell t]hat y ded mary for yowr pl[easure a]t thys tym and now I trost that y[ou] wel sowfor me to [marry as] me l[iketh fo]r to do[1] for sere I k[now that yo]w shal have [*whole line lost*] [Fol. 253v] [*]ttyrs that they dothe fo[r I a]wsowr yowr grace that [my m]ynde ys not ther wer they [w]old have me and I trowst y[our gr]ace l wol not do so to me that [has al]wes bene so gl glade to folfel yo[ur] mynde as I have bene wer fo[re I] be schye yowr grace for to be goo[d lo]rd and brother to me for sere [a]nd yf yowr grace wol hav[e] graun[ted] me maryde yn onny place [sav]yng wer as my myn[d i]s I wel be ther wer as y[our g]race nowr no nothyr shal h[ave o]nny goye of me for I prom[ise y]owr grace yow shal her tha[t] I wel be yn some relyge[ious ho]wse the wche I thyncke yow[r gr]ace l wole be very sory of an[d] yowr l reme allso sere I k[now w]el that the kyng that y[s my so]ne wol sende to yowr gra[ce by] hys onkloke the d[u]ke of [Berr?]y for to mar[ry me] h[ere but I tr]ost yowr [grace * . . . *] [Fol. 254r] [*whole line lost* I sha]e never be mery at m[y he]arte for and ever that I d[o marr] y wel I lefe I trow your grac[e] knokythe as wel as I do and ded [be]for I cham hethyr and so I tro[st y]owr grace wel be contentyd [un]eles I wold never mary [* . . . *] lefe but be ther wer never man nar woman shale h[ave] goye of me wer for I besche yowr grace to be good lord to hym and to me bothe for I knoke wel that he hathe m[et ma]ny henderrays to yowr gr[ace o]f hym and me bowthe w[here] for and yowr grace be good [l]ord to us bowthe I wol not ch[* f]or all the whalde worlde af[ter b]ut be schye yowr grace be goo[d l]ord and brother to me as y[e h] ave bene her afor tym f[or in you] ys all the trowst that I hav[e in th]ys w[orld] aftyr god no [mor to] yo[ur grac]e at thy[s time God *] [Fol. 254v] [se]nd yowr harttes desy[re]* by l yowr humbel and lowyng suster mary quene of france

9780230620308_07_app.indd 174

2/18/2011 3:53:06 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

175

[Written upside down at bottom] To the kyng my brother thys be delyverd yn haste 1 Observing that Joseph Grove was in a position to see Mary’s letter before the 1731 fire, Green follows him in supplying the line, “That your grace well knows what I did as to my first marriage was for your pleasure and now I trust you will suffer me to do what I like” (qtd. in Letters, 188).

15. M ARY TO HENRY FEBRUARY 15, 1515 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 248r. Holograph. Paper. 3 pages. Fol. 248: 174 × 279 mm; fol. 249: 178 × 279 mm; fol. 250: 174 × 281 mm. Fol. 248 contains a watermark of an eight-pointed star wearing a crown decorated with fleurs-de-lis. The closing is 6 mm below the body of the letter. [Please]t yowr grace the frenche [king o]n towesdaye nyte laste came to vesyt me and [*] with me many dewyres [diverse] [*]ng amonnge the wyche he [de]mandyde me whether I had [*] made ony promes of ma[rry]ge yn ony place assuryng [m] e opon hys honner and [*] the worde of a prence [tha]t yn case I wolde be playn [with] hym yn that affayre yt [he] wolde do for me thyreyn [to] the beste of hys powre w [whe]ther yt were yn hys [real]me or owt of the sayme [whe]r ownto I anssywrde that [I wo]lde desclose on to hym the [secre]t of my harte yn yo[*]se as owneto the pryn[ce of the] worlde after your [grace] yn home I hade m[ost *]s and so declar[ing t]he good mynde [Fol. 248v] for dyveres consyde[rations I] bere to my lord of Sowf[olk ask]ynge hyme not only [to grant] me by hys faver a[nd] consente thyronto but that he wolde of hys hande wrete unto y[our] grace and to pray yo[u] bere yowr lyke favfr to me and to be conte[nt] with the sayme the wych he grantede me to do a[nd] so hathe done acordyn[g] as shale apere on to yo[ur] grace by hys sayd le[tter] Sire and Sire I most humli hu[mbly] besche yow to take thys t[*] worthe wyche I have m[ade] on to the frenche kyng [in] good parte the wyche I [d]ed only to be dyscharg[ed of t] he exstreme payne [and an]nuyans I was yn [by reason]e of sche seute as th[e ki] ng mayd on to [me not] [Fol. 249r] [accordi]ng with my honoure [*]e he hathe clerly lefte also sere I feryd gretely [in] case that I hade by pete [*] matter broke for hys [kn]olegyue that he myt have [no]t wel entretyd my sayde [lor]de of soffalke and the Rather to have Retornyd to hys [for]mar fantesy & sut[es] wer for sere [sinc]e yt hathe plesyde the sayde [ky] ng to desyr and pray [yo]w of yowr fayfowr and [co]nsente I most hy humbly [a]nd hartely beseche yow yt may lyke yowr grace [to] bere yowr fayfowr and [con]saynte to the same and to [adve]rtysses the sayd kyng by [wr]yteyng of yowr owne [ha] nde of your playsowr in that be halfe an[d aft]er myn opynyon [*] letter of request sha[ll be to you]r grete hownwr [*]eve to contente your concele a[nd with] [Fol. 249v]

9780230620308_07_app.indd 175

2/18/2011 3:53:06 PM

176

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

al the owther nobl[es of the] Reme and agret [*] for yowr grace a[*] the worlde and thy[*] I li eftsowens requer[e you] for al the lowfe that y[t] lyked yowr grace to be[ar me] that ye do nat Refeuse [to] grant me yowr fav[or] and concente ynforme [be]for rehyersyde the wyc[he] yff ye shale deny me I am [as] wel as swereyd[1] to ly[ve] as desswlate a lyfe as eve[r] hade cretawre the wyc[he] I knoke wele shale be myne eende allwes [pray]yng your grace to [have c]ompassyone of me [my] most lowyng and [so]werayne lord and [brother whe]rown to I have [*]de you bescheyng [*] alwes to pre[serve your] most royal [estate] [Fol. 250r] [written] at parys by the xv [of] febrwary [I mo]st humbly besche yowr [grac]e to conseder yn case [that] ye make deffycowlte to [con]desend to the promesys [as I] wyche the frenche kyng [will] take nown cowrage to [re]new hys swttes to me [ass]uryng yow that I hade [r]ather to be owt of the world yn yt so shold hapyne [and] how he shal entrete my lord of sowffolke god [kn]okethe with meny owther [inc]onwenyces wyche myt en[sue] of the same the wyche I [pray] owr lord that I neve[r ha]ve lefe to se by yowr lowyng suster and trowe sarwante mary [q]uene of france 1 assured. 16. M ARY TO HENRY FEBRUARY 18, 1515 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/10/61. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper, containing a sun watermark. 205 × 279 mm. The closing starts 25 mm below the body of the letter. My moost loving and moost kyndest brother / I hartely Recommende me unto your good grace ·/ So it is yf ye calle to your Remembrance at our being at gilford / ye gafe the prebende of saynt Stephenys / whiche the deane of your chappelle had / as now bisshop of lincolnn / unto my trusty and welbelovyd almoner doctor dentonn / and that at the Requeste of the archebisshop of yorke ·/ but as now I understande one of his chapplains hath it / of the whiche I gretly marvelle for I wolde not have supposed that he wolde have suffred ony persone and in especiall ony of his chapplayns to have supplantyd ony that belonged unto me / namely in suche thinges / as he made promesse to the contrary / Now I beseche your grace to desire my lord of yorke that he woll cause his chapplaynn to Resigne the said prebende / and that ye woll promyse hym the next advouson other in saynt Stephenys / or Wyndesore / for my sake / and beside that I beseche your grace to gyve me licence to laboure unto you for some other benefice for the said chapplaynn whiche shalbe thought convenyent for himm I wolde feyne that my almoner had a howse there for diverse causes, and also for asmuche as he hath done me here in this parties good service / both for your honour and mynn / What his service hath benn, I doubte not ye be credebly informed by diverse: besyde the true Relacion that I have oftymes made unto your grace by writing

9780230620308_07_app.indd 176

2/18/2011 3:53:06 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

177

whiche knoweth oure lord god who preserve you amenn / frome paris the xviijth daye of february [Mary’s hand]

by yowr lowyng ma suster marie quene of france [Fol. 61v]

To my moost loving and kyndest brother the kyng of Englond [labeled in a different secretary hand perpendicular to the address] The Quene of Fraunce to the king in the behalf of her Almoner Doctor Denton for a benefyce from Parys 17. M ARY TO WOLSEY FEBRUARY 18, 1515 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 259r. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper, containing sun watermark. 178 × 279 mm. 6 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. [Righ]t Reverend fader in god / I Recommende me unto you hartely [and] I thanke you for the grete kyndnes that I have evermor founde in you / My lord I thanke you also for your loving letters whiche ye have send me as hyther / to my grete confort, and in especiall for theym whiche ye have send me now of late, My lord ye Remembre I doubte not / that at my last beingat gilford ye desirede the kyng my brother / to gyf unto my trusty and welbelovyd almoner Doctour Denton / the prebende in saynt Stephenys / whiche as then the deane of his chappelle and now bisshop of lincoln hadde in possession, as thann the kynges grace shewed me in your presence / that he sholde have it / and also you promised me the same / and to sollicite the kyng my brother for the parformaunce of his promesse / Neverthelesse I am credebly Informed that my almoner is dysappointed of the said prebende ·/ and that your chapplayn hath it / of the whiche I marveille gretly / for asmuche as my sayd almoner hath done me good service in this countrey / to the grete honour of the kyng my brother and mynn also / and that the promesse was made undesired of my behalfe ·/ for ye were the persone that onely movyd the kyng to gif it unto my almoner / and I am assuryd that his grace wolde not have varyed without he hadde benn persuaded to the contrary./ My lord for asmuche as I see you benevolent unto me in alle my maters, and ever hath benn / syth oure first acoyntaunce ·/ and now specially / I pray you therfore to do so muche at mynn Instance & Request ·/ to desire your chaplaynn to Resigne the said prebende / to the behove and use of m[y] said almoner / and I promise you that I woll not cesse unto I ha[ve] gottenn som promocion of the kyng my brother or elles of some ot[her] persone for your said chapplaynn whiche I truste shalbe worth do[uble] the valowe of saynt Stephenys / and besyde that I shall help [*] he may have the

9780230620308_07_app.indd 177

2/18/2011 3:53:07 PM

178

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

next prebende hereafter in saynt Stephen[ys *] I pray you my lord send me worde of your mynde / and that [Fol. 259v] none excuse made ·/ for I assure you my [*] shalbe without any excuse ·/ yf god send me life [*] saye that worde ·/ that I wolde not wilfully part [*] knoweth his grace ·/ Amen from paris the xviij day [of February] [Mary’s hand]

by yowr lowyng f[riend] marie quene o[f France]

[In scribe’s hand, 139 mm below signature] To the most Reverend fader in god tharchebisshop of yorck 18. M ARY TO HENRY M ARCH 6, 1515 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Vespasian F.III, fol. 41r. Holograph. Paper. Cropped to 184 × 243 mm to fit in album of bound manuscripts. my most kynde and lovyng brother I humbly recommand me unto yowr grace thankyng yow interly of yowr comforteable letters besechyng yowr grace most humbly now so to contenwe toward me and my frendes as owr spessyale trowst ys yn yowr grace and that yt may layke yow with all convennynte delygt to sende for me that I may shortely se yowr grace wyche ys the thynge that I most dessyr yn thys world and I and all myn ys at yowr graces commandemente and playsayr at parys the vj day of marche by yowr lowyng swster mary [In the left margin, centered between the two lines of Mary’s closing, an italic hand notes] To the Kings Grac thes be delivered [Fol. 41v, written in Mary’s hand] To the kyn[ges] grace thys [by] delyverde 19. M ARY TO HENRY M ARCH, 1515 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 246r. Holograph. Paper. 2 pages. Fol. 246: 178 × 273 mm; Fol. 247: 180 × 279 mm, with a watermark of a unicorn and its verso shows traces of wax seal. There is a 13 mm gap between the closing and the rest of the letter.

9780230620308_07_app.indd 178

2/18/2011 3:53:07 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

179

[Pleas]ythe yt yowr grace to my [gre]ttyest dyscomforte soro and dys [com]fort dysconsolacyon bwt lately [I] have bene afartysyd of the [g]ret and hye desplaysowr wyche yowr hynes berythe [u]n to me and my lord of sowffolke [f]or the maryage betwene us [S]ire I wile not yn ony wyse denye bwt that I have offendyd [y]owr grace for the wyche [I] do pwt my selefe most humbly [i]n yowr clemens and marcy newer the lese to the yntynte [t]hat yowr hynes shold nat [th]ynke that I hade sympeli [carnal]ly or of any synswale apend[ite do]ne the same I haveyng no r[egar]d to fall yn yowr gra[ce’s displ]aysowr I asswre yowr gra[ce *] I hade newer downe [again]s[t your] or ordnans and c[ons]ente but by the Re[ason of the g]ret dyspayre w[* . . . *]e by the to fr[iars] [Fol. 246v] wyche hathe sartenyd m[e] yn case I * I dyd come yn[gland] yowr concele wolde never [con]cente to the maryge betewn [my] sayde lord and me wyth [ma]ny othyr sayynges consary[ning] the same promes so that I veryly that the sayde fryres wold newer have affart to have made me lyke ower[ture] on lese theye myt have hade l[ike] *g charge fro some of yowr cou[ncell] the wyche l pwt me yn syche strene fere and dowte of th[e] optaynyng of the thyng wy[che I] dessyryd most yn thys wo[rld] that I Rathyr chawouse to pu[t] me yn yowr marcy acomplyschyng the mary[age t]hanne to put me yn t[o the o]rder of yowr concell k[nowing th]ym to be othyr w wysse [mind]ed wer opone Sire I put [my lord of] Swffolke yn chowsse we[ther he w]old acomplysche th[e mar]yage withyn fow[r days or else he would never have] [1] [Fol. 247r] ed ynyoyede me were by I knoke wele that I constrayn [hym] to breke syche promesses as [he] made yowr grace as wele for [fe]re of leesynge of me as allso that I assertinned hyme that [by t]hyre entent I wolde newer [com]e yn to englonde and nowe that yowr grace knokythe [th]e boothe offeneses of the wyche [I] have bene the only occasyone [I] most humbly & as yowr most [sorro]fowle swstere Requereryng [yo]u to have compassyon apone [us] boothe and to pardon owr off[ens]es and that yt towele play[se you]r grace to wryt to me & [m]y Lord of sowffelke sowme [comfor]ttabele wordes for yt sh[ould be the g]rettyst comforte for u[s both] by yowr lovyng and most hum[ble sister] Mary [Fol. 247v] the Frenche Quene [written below and perpendicular to “the French Quene”] The kynges grace 1

In his Life of Wolsey, Joseph Grove, who saw this letter before it was damaged, notes that Mary excused Brandon to Henry in a letter explaining “that she had limited him to the Space of ‘four Days, at the same Time protesting, that unless he came to a Resolution within that Space, he must despair in his Pretensions, which was the Reason that induced the Duke privately to marry her.’ ” (257). As a result, Green fills in Mary’s words thus; given the size of the letter’s gaps, I follow her example.

9780230620308_07_app.indd 179

2/18/2011 3:53:08 PM

180

Appendix: Mary’s Letters 20. M ARY TO WOLSEY M ARCH 22, 1515

© The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 258r. Holograph. Paper, containing the watermark of a unicorn. 178 × 260 mm. Traces of the wax seal remain on fol. 258v. 19 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. My very goode lord yn my m[ost] harty manar I Recommand [me] unto yow letyng yow the sa[me] to onderstond that my lord [of] sowffolke hathe sente me yowr let[ters] wyche latly he Resevyde by cooke b[y] wyche I parceve the faythe fowle g[ood] mynd wyche ye do bere onto [us] bowthe and how that ye be de[ter] mynyde not to leve us yn ow[r] extryme trowbele for the wy[ch] yowr most faste and lowy[ng] delyng I most enterly tha[nk] yow Requeryng yow to cont[inue to] wardes us as ye have be[en w]yche shale never be for got[ten in] ony off owr d be halfes b[ut to the] uttermost of owr po[wer we shal]l be allwes Redy to sho[w] fayfthe fowle kend[ness as knoweth]e owr lord h w[ho send you long*] lyfe wrytten [* . . . *] [Fol. 258v] [My] lord I Requere yow that [I] may have somme some comfor[tab]bele letters from the kyng [m]y brothyr and from yow [fo]r I trow thyr was newer [w]oman that had more nyd by yowr lowyng fryn[d] mary quene of fran[ce] [38 mm down] [To] my lord off [y]owrke [Written in different hand, 25 mm down and perpendicular to Mary’s signature,] The frenche quens 21. M ARY TO HENRY M ARCH/EARLY A PRIL, 1515 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula D.VI, fol. 251r. Holograph. Paper. 2 pages. Fol. 251: 184 × 284 mm; fol. 252: 114 × 289 mm. There is a watermark of a six-pointed star with a crown decorated with fleurs-de-lis on fol. 251. There are remnants of the wax seal on fol. 252r. There are 38mm between the closing and the rest of the letter. [* . . . * yo]wr grace to understande [whe]re as I wrote unto yowr [grace] towchyng my jewels and plate wyche I promeste yowr [gra]ce sowche as I have shal be att [yo]wr commandement ever wil [*] how be yt tys nat so wele [as] I wold yt had bene for thyr [i]s moche styckkyng thyr at [ho]w be yt I dowte nat but I [we]le have yt at the lyncke *[i]n ye end with the good helpe [of] your grace and yowr [coun]cele that be here sere I thynck [m]y lord of sowffolke wole wr[ite m]or playndler to yowr gra[ce tha]n I do of thys maters [*]n wan yow and the [* . . . *] a grede with yowr gra[ce] I have thym I wel [* . . . *] yow my part of the [*]re the frenche kyng [*] spekys many ky[nd word]es unto me a [* . . . *] me that he ha[th] [Fol. 251v]

9780230620308_07_app.indd 180

2/18/2011 3:53:08 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

181

specyall mynd to ha[ve] peace with yche yowr gra[ce be]fore anye prynce cry[stendom] and Sire y wolde be seche yowr [grace] that yt myt so be yf yt stonde with yowr fayvowre a[nd] playssowr for by the men[ys][1] and fayvowr of yowr gr[ace] I have obtaynede as myc[h] honowre in thys Raym [as] was possybele to any woma[n to] have whyche causys m[e to] wryte to yowr grace [in t]hys matter over and ab[ove a]s I most humbly bese[ech y]owr grace to wryte to th[e fre]nche kyng and al [yo]wr enbassadowrs here [*]e make all they sp[eed] possybele that y m[ay come] to yowr gra[ce as m]y singler dess[ire * . . . * c]omforte [is] [Fol. 252r] [in] yowr grace abowe [all thi]nges yn thys world [as k]nokys oure lord how [eve]r presawre yowr grace by yowr lowyng swster mary [Fol. 252v] the kynges grace me brodar [57 mm down, perpendicular and upside down, a different secretary hand notes] the frenche quenys lettre 1

means 22. M ARY TO WOLSEY A PRIL 3, 1515 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/10/106. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper, containing a watermark of a coat of arms with a single fleur-de-lis, the arms crowned on top and tasseled on the bottom. 192 × 279 mm. Traces of the wax seal remain on fol. 106v. The closing is 13 mm below the body of the letter.

My very good lord with all my hert I commend me unto yow I understond that it hath pleased the kinge my broder to promote Doctor West being here oon of his Ambassadours to the Busshoprike of Ely Wherof I am Right glad By reason of whiche promocion he must departe with divers of his benefices Amonges whiche he hath ij oonn called Egylsfeld in the Busshoprike of Derham and the other the Archedeconry of Darby which as I am enfourmed be of no great value Beseching you my lord S at myne instaunce and for my sake to be so good lord unto my servant Johnn palgrave maister of Arte Whiche hath doon unto me right good and acceptable service and to his and his friendes great charge and onn my parte as yet hiderto undes unremembred as by your good wisdome and provision to finde the meanes / that he may have oon of the said benefices hartily praying you and trusting that ye will doo it with effecte / and to rescribe your unto me your good wille doon theryn / and thus the holy goost preserve you Frome parys the iijde day of April [Mary’s hand] marie quene off france [Fol. 106v] my lord of yorke

9780230620308_07_app.indd 181

2/18/2011 3:53:08 PM

182

Appendix: Mary’s Letters 23A AND B. M ARY TO HENRY A PRIL 30/M AY 1, 1515

National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/10/79. Secretary hand. Paper, 445 × 311 mm long, folded in half; the writing on fol. 79v sometimes crosses the fold and extends onto fol. 80r. Another draft letter, SP 1/10/77, which is written in Wolsey’s hand on paper with the same watermark, indicates that the paper may have been Wolsey’s. The watermark is a hand, palm up and marked with an x; the fingers touch a 5-pointed star. This is the first draft of a letter from Mary to Henry made in Wolsey’s secretary Brian Tuke’s hand. After Mary dictated the letter, Tuke, who had doublespaced the letter to leave room for Wolsey to make alterations, crossed the channel to Dover where he met with Wolsey. Following the line spacing, I have determined the text of Mary’s initial draft and reproduced that here as 23a. 23b is the letter as it reads with Wolsey’s changes incorporated. He would have sent it back for Mary’s approval before the final version—which is not extant—was rewritten and sent. A. My most dere and most entierly beloved brother in most tender and loving maner possible I recommende me to your grace Derrest brother I doubte not but ye have in your good remembrans that at suche tyme as ye first moved me to mariage Ser my lorde and late husband kyng loys of fraunce whose soule our lorde have in his mercy / shewing unto me the grete weale of peax whiche shulde ensue of the same Though I understode that he was verray aged and sikely yet for the helping for the of good peax I was contented and upon your said mocionn and desire I made you this answerre / that I coude be contented and aggreable to the said mariage So that if I shulde fortune to overlive the said late king I mygt with your good wil frely chose and despose my self to any other mariage at my libertie / withoute any sute labour your displeasure / Wherunto brother ye condescended and graunted as ye wel knowe Promysing unto me that in suche cace ye wolde never provoke or move me but as mynn ounn hert and mynde shulde be best contented And that whersoever I shulde dispose my self ye wolde hooly be contented with the same And upon that your good comforte and faitheful promyse I assented to the mariage with my said lorde and late husbande / Which I wolde never have graunted to / Derrest brother / sens it is so that god hathe takenn from me my said late husbande / I shal in good and playnn maner shewe unto you my verray mynde and whiche is this / & beseching you to be contented with the same like as my hoole trust is that ye wol be according to your said promyse So it is brother as ye wel knowe I have always bornn good mynde towardes my lorde of Suffolk and hym as the cace dothe nowe requyre with me / I cann love before al other / and upon hym I have am perfitely set my mynde setled and determyned And upon the good comforte which I have that ye wol observe your promyse I shal playnly certifie you that of your said promyse the matir is so ferre forthe that for no cause erthely I wol varye or chaunge for from the same / And of me and of mynn ownn towardnes and mynde onely hathe it proceded Wherfore my good and most kynde brother I nowe beseche your grace to take this matier in good parte and to geve unto me and to my said lorde of Suffolk your good wil herin And to the intent that ye mygt before be playnly advertised [Fol. 79v]

9780230620308_07_app.indd 182

2/18/2011 3:53:08 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

183

of this mater I am nowe departed oute of the realme of Fraunce and am commen into this your tounn of Calays / Where I do remayne and shal do til suche tyme as I shal receyve have aunswer from you of your good and loving mynde herin / Beseching / Humbly beseching your grace for the grete and tendre love whiche ever hathe benn and shal be bitwene you and me to put your good mynde and assent herunto and to certifie me by your good and loving lettres of the same ./ til whiche tyme I wol make mynn abode here and no further entre your realme And to the intent it may please you to be the better contented with this my most herty desire I amm contented and expresly promyse you to geve unto you al the hoole dote whiche I have founde the meanes to recover as largely as it was delyvered with me and besides also to geve unto you the half of al suche plate of gold and Juelx as was the half shal comm to my parte for the half of the plate of gold and Juelx of my said late husband and besides this I shal geve unto you rather then fayle asmoche yerely part of my dower to as grete a somme as shal stonde with your wil and pleasure Trusting verailly that in fulfilling of your said promyse to me made ye wol shewe your brotherly love and good mynde to me in this bihalf whiche to knowe I abide with most desire My derrest and most enterely beloved brother I as knoweth our lorde whom I beseche to have your grace in his mercyful governaunce / B. My most dere and most entierly beloved brother in most humble maner I recommende me to your grace Derrest brother I doubte not but ye have in your good remembrans that where as for the good of peax and for the furtherance of your affayres ye moved me to marye with my lorde and late husband the late king loys of fraunce whose soule god pardon Though I understode that he was verray aged and sikely yet for the advauncement of the said peax and for the furtheraunce of your causes I upon your said mocion and desire and at your mocion I was contented to conforme was my self to your said mocionn so that if I conformed my self to your mynde therin so that if I shulde fortune to survive the said late king I mygt with your good wil marye my self at my libertie withoute your displeasor / Wherunto good brother ye condescended and graunted as ye wel knowe promysing unto me that in suche cace ye wolde never provoke or move me but as myn ounn hert and mynde shulde be best pleased And that whersoever I shulde dispose my self ye wolde hooly be contented with the same And upon that your good comforte and faitheful promyse I assented to the said mariage Whiche elles I wolde never have graunted to as at the same tyme I shewed unto you more at large / and I by reasonn therof wherby I have ben at my libertie I remembering the grete and manyfolde vertues of my lorde of nowe that god hathe called my said late husbande to his mercy and that I amm att my libertie derest brother so it is that remembering the grete vertues whiche I have seen and perceyved heretofore in my lorde of Suffolk to whom I have always ben of good mynde as ye wel knowe I have affixed and clerely determyned my self to mary with hym / and of myn and the same assure you hath proceded oonly of myn ownn mynde withoute any request or labour of my said lorde of Suffolk or of any other person And to be playn with your grace I have so bounde my self unto him that for no cause erthely I wol or may varye or chaunge from the same / Wherfore my good and most kynde brother I nowe beseche your grace to take this matier in good parte and to geve unto me and to my said lorde of Suffolk your good wil herin [Fol. 79v]

9780230620308_07_app.indd 183

2/18/2011 3:53:09 PM

184

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

Ascertaynyng you that uponn the comforte trust and comfort whiche I have that you of your honnourable regarding of your promyse I haue nowe departed for that you have always honnourably regarded your promyse I am nowe commen oute of the realme of Fraunce into and have put my self with in your jurisdiccion in this your townn of Calays / Where I intende to remayne til suche tyme as I shal have aunswer from you of your good and loving mynde herin / whiche I wolde not have donn if I but upon the feitheful trust whiche that I have in your said promyse Humbly beseching your grace for the grete and tendre love whiche ever hathe benn and shal be bitwene you and me to bere your gracious mynde and shewe yourself to be agreable herunto and to certifie me by your most loving lettres of the same / til whiche tyme I wol make mynn abode here and no further entre your realme And to the intent it may please you the rather to condescended to this my most herty desire I amm contented and expresly promyse and bynde me to you by these presentes to geve you al the hoole dote whiche was delyvered with me and also al suche plate of gold and juelx as I shal have of my said late husbandes And over and besides this I shal rather than fayle geve you asmoche yerely part of my dower to as grete a somme as shal stande with your wil and pleasure And of al the premysses I promyse to make upon knowledge of your pleasure good mynde to mak unto you sufficient bondes Trusting verailly that in fulfilling of your said promyse to me made ye wol shewe your brotherly love affeccion and good mynde to me in this bihalf whiche to here of I abide with most desire and not to be myscontented with my said lorde of Suffolk whom of myn inwarde good mynde and affeccion to hym I have in maner enforced to be aggreable to the same without any request by hym made as knoweth our lorde whom I beseche to have your grace in his mercyful governaunce / 24. M ARY TO HENRY SEPTEMBER 9, 1516 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Caligula B.VI, fol.119r. Holograph. Paper. 209 × 305 mm. Mary’s signature is placed 32 mm below the body of the letter. my most derest & Ryt enterly belowyd lorde brothare yn my most humble wys I R[e]commande me unto yowr grace shawy[ng] unto yowr grace that I do a pa[*] by my lord my howsbande that y[e] ar playsayde and contentyd that he shale resorde on to yowr presence at swche tyme as yowr grace shale be at hys maner off donyngton wher by I se wele he hys merwosly Re joysyd and moche comfortyd that yt hathe lykede yowr grace so to be playsayd for the wyche yowr specyale goodnys to hym show[ed] yn that be halfe & for sondry and many oder yowr kyndnes as wel[l] to me as to hym showed and gevy[n] yn dyvers cawsys I most humbly thanke yowr grace assewryng yow that for the same I accompt myself as moche bonden un to yowr grace a[s] ewer swster was to brother and accordyng ther un to I shale to the beste of my powr dowryng my lyef endever myselefe as ferre as in me shale be possyble to do th[e] thyng that shale stond with yowr playsowr and yf it had be tyme convenyente so yowr grace hade be ther wyche pleassyde I wolde most gla[dly] [Fol. 119v] have accompanyde my sayde lord yn thys yowrnay bwt I trowst that bowthe I and my sayd lord shal se yow at acordy[ng] as yowr grace worte[a] yn yowr laste letters un to my sayd lorde, wyche ys the thyng that I dessyr mor[e] to opteyne than

9780230620308_07_app.indd 184

2/18/2011 3:53:09 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

185

all the honor off the worlde, and thws I beseche owre lord to send unto yow my most dereste and enterly belowyd brother and lord long and prosperows lyfe with the fole accomplyshment of al yowr honorable dessyrs most humbly prayeng yowr grace that I may be humbly Recommanded unto th my most derest suster and beste belowyd suster the quene grace and to the quene off Scottys my welbelowyd suster \ trowstyng that I sha[l] be asserteyned frome yowr grace off the prosperows estate and helthe of my enterly enterly belowyd nyce the prences to home I pray god to send long lyfe frome letheryngh[am] in Swff, the ix day off septembar by the hand of yowr lowyng suster mary quene off france a

[ ] wrote 25. M ARY TO WOLSEY SEPTEMBER 28, 1519 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/19/27. Autograph. Secretary hand Paper. 285 × 203 mm. Written in landscape orientation on the page. Traces of wax remain on fol. 27v. 13 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. Ryght reverend father in god in my hartyest wyse I comend me to you And wher as yt whas so that at your laste beyng withe my lord and me at letherynghamm halle I ded instance you to be good and gracious lord unto my trusty and wilbelovid sarvant Susan savage / As for consarnyng the trobyll of her brother Antony Savage in the wiche premyssys your grace the same tyme ded promesse to shew your gracious favours in all the Cawsys Resonabyll of the said Antony And in truste wherof I have causyd the said susan Savage to enquere And bryng forthe by fore your grace her said brother upon your forsaid promysse And for by cause that I have Causyd hym to be browght by fore you at this tyme / therfor I do praye you in my moste hartyest maner that Acordying unto your promesse to me made ye wolbe good and gracious lord unto the forsaid Antony in all his forsayd Cawssys And in so doyng your grace shall not only do Amerytorius dede to be Rewardyd of god / but Alsso bynde me at Altymes to be As redy to do your grace or Any of yours as ffarre plesars as knowithe our lord whoe kepe your grace From Butley Abbey the xxviijth day of September [Mary’s hand]

by yowr lowyng frynd marie the frenche quene [Fol. 27v]

To the Ryght Reverend father in god my lord Cardynalle 26. M ARY TO WOLSEY JANUARY 22, 1520 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/19/169. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper. 191 × 285 mm. Traces of wax remain on fol. 169v. 13 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter.

9780230620308_07_app.indd 185

2/18/2011 3:53:10 PM

186

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

Myn especiall good lorde in mynn moost harty wise I commende me vnto you / hertely besechyng you to be good lorde unto Anthony Savage And to have in your remembraunce the promise that ye made unto me at Letheringhamm concernyng thobteynyng of his pardone Wherin I pray you now to be his good lorde the better for my sake and as this mynn especiall desire / My lorde I write not unto you for that I think you have forgotyn your said promyse herin / But in consideracion of his long and peynefull suyt that he hath hadde and susteyned to his utter undoing wherby he is so farr enpoverisshed that he hath not wherby to lyve nether without somme gracious remedy may be shortly for hym provyded he shall never be Able to lyve in tyme to come I amm so bolde to desire you of your goodnes to have hym in your good remembraunce And to have remors and pitie unto hymm in this bihalff And thus the holy goost have you in blissed keping From henham the xxijth day of January / [Mary’s hand]

by yowres marie the frenche quene [Fol. 169v]

To my lord Cardynall 27. M ARY TO WOLSEY AUGUST 3, 1525 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/35/234. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper, containing watermark of a hand reaching out to a 5-pointed star, the two connected by a line. 216 × 305 mm. Traces of wax remain on fol. 234v. The closing starts 25 mm below the body of the letter. Note, Brandon’s signature in his letter on the same subject is 64 mm below the body. My lorde in my moost herty wise I commende me unto youe so it is divers of my rightes and dewties concernyng my doote in fraunce have been of late tyme steied and restrained in suche wise as I ne myne officers there may not have ne Receive the same as they have donn in tymes passid being to my damages therinn And to their great trouble many wayes as my trusty servant George hampton this berer shal shew unto youe to whomm I pray you to gyve credence in the same / And my lorde in theis and in all others I evermore have and do put myne oonly trust and confidence in you for the Redres of the same / Intierly desiring youe therfor that I may have the kinges grace my derrist brother and yours lettres and yours into fraunce to suche as my said servant shal desire / And by the same I trust my said causes shalbe brought to suche good conclusion and ordre now that I shal from hensfurthe enyoie my rightes there in as ample wise as I have donn heretofore And so it may stond with your pleasur I wold gladly my said derrist brother Embassadors being in fraunce now by your good meanes shuld have the delyvery of all thes said lettres and your with there furtherinnce of the contentes of the same to that they may doo / And thus my lorde I amm evermore bolde to put you to paynes without any recompence oonles my good mynde and herty prayer wherof ye shalbe assured during my lif to the best of my poer as knowith our lorde who have you in his blissid tuicion At Wyngfeld Castell the thirde daye of August [Mary’s hand]

yours assurede marie the frenche quene [Fol. 234v]

9780230620308_07_app.indd 186

2/18/2011 3:53:10 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

187

To myn especial good lorde my lorde Cardinal [perpendicular to the address] from the Frenche quene 28. M ARY TO WOLSEY SEPTEMBER 10, 1525 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/36/36. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper. 222 × 285 mm. 6 mm separate the closing from the body of the letter. My lord in my moost harty wise I commend me unto you / Where it hath pleasid the king my derist brother and you to be contented that I shuld send by sufficient Auctorite certeyn trusty persons in to Fraunce / aswell for surveying of my dote and dowery there asfor Redressing of such enormytees as ar or may unto theym appere to be within the same / I entend as now to send thidder by vertue of commyssion Doctor Dentonn my Chauncelor and my trusty servant Fraunces hall for thordering of my said causes there / Nevertheles for / asmuch as your lordship hath alwaies taken peynn in all my causes / and have advertisid me evermore with your best advyse and counsaill in the same / which I have alwayes gladly folowed to my great comfort and so entend to doo/ And for that it lieth in you muche to prefer myn honor and profit in this bihalff / I have sent unto you my said servant Fraunces hall / Which bicause the hole Commyssion were to tedious for your lordship shall enforme you of theffect of the same commyssion to whome I pray you to gyve credence / And to advertise hym therin as your lordship shall thynk best / And that I may have your Favourable lettres unto the Madamm and Admyrall of Fraunce by the which I dout not but that I shall the better opteyn my right there with Favor / And in case the said Admyrall do advaunce mynn affayres, there as I trust he woll the rather for your sake / if there by any thing withinn my said dowery that may do hymm pleasur / your lordship shall ordre me theryn as ye shall think reasonable / From leysoon Abbey the x th day of Septembre [Mary’s hand]

by yowrs as sured marie the frenche qwene [Fol. 36v]

To my Lorde Cardynallis good Lordeshipe 29. M ARY TO FRANCIS M AY 9, 1526 Bibliothèque Nationale de France. MS Dupuy 462, fol. 32. Autograph. Secretary hand. Monseigneur Je ne me puis assouvir de vous festayer de votre Joyeaulx et plus que desere Retour en votre Royaulme Et sur tout de ce quil apleu adieu vous Ramener a sante et de autant que le desplaisir de votre prise et de la griefue et dangereuse maladye que vous aves eue / me a plus donne de ennuiy / La Joye de votre Retour et du Recouvrement de votre bonne sante en ay este plus grande

9780230620308_07_app.indd 187

2/18/2011 3:53:10 PM

188

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

et non seullement en moy qui me y sens trop de Raisons obligee mais aussi au Roy de angleterre monseigneure et frere Et generallement atous les princes et seres de ce pays et si les dames devuoyent estre mises au nombre elles meritent y avoir bonne part Car Il nya nulle dicelles qui vous ont veu et aultres qui ont ouy parles des vertuz et graces que dieu vous a faictez quil ne vous ayent plainct et donne de bonnes et devotes prieres Et sil me eust estre possible et par pourter partie de votre Enuy vous donnes quelque Relasche Je leusse faict du meilleur cueur quil ne se pourroit dire / Et non de moindre ay Remercye le tout puissant de la grace quil vous afaicte de vous delivrer de ceste anxiete et vous Ramener en sa bonne sante en votre Royaulme ou Je trouve tant de honnestete et bonte en madame ma cousine votre bonne mere que Je ne vous en scauroys assez Remercier Je aure tousjours besoing en mes affairez de votre bonne grace Delaquelle treshumblement Je me Recommande Et priant quil vous donnct tres bonne & Longue vie Escript en notre manoir de Southeuark les londres ce ix th Jour de may [Mary’s hand]

votre bonne mere et cousine marie [Fol. 48v]

Au Roy [perpendicular to the address] La Royne marie My lord, I cannot congratulate you enough on your joyous and greatly desired return to your realm. And above all that it has pleased God to bring you back to health, and in the same proportion to the distress of your capture and the grievous and dangerous illness that you have had, which gave me great pain, the greater has been the joy of your return and the recovery of your good health, and not only to me, who feel myself obliged to you for so many reasons, but also to the King of England, my lord and brother, and generally to all the princes and lords of this country. And if the ladies are to be placed in that number, they deserve to have good part therein, because there are none of them who have seen you nor any who have heard of the virtues and graces that God has given to you, who have not pitied you and given good and devout prayers. And if it had been possible for me, by bearing part of your troubles, to give you some relief, I would have done it with the best of hearts, such that it is not possible to express. And nonetheless I have thanked the Almighty for the grace that He has given you to deliver you from this anxiety and to bring you back in good health into your kingdom where I find so much honesty and goodness in my lady and my cousin, your good mother, that I do not know how to thank you enough. I will always have need in my affaires of your good grace, to which very humbly I recommend myself, and praying that He will give you very good and long life. Written in our manor of Southwark, London, this 9th day of May. your good mother and cousin, Mary To the King The Queen Mary

9780230620308_07_app.indd 188

2/18/2011 3:53:11 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

189

30. M ARY TO MONTMORENCY January 15, 1528 Unfortunately, this manuscript was unable to be located at the Bibliothèque Nationale; accordingly I supply Green’s translation from Lives so that all of Mary’s extant letters may be collected here (133–4). Mary Monsieur, the Grand Master, I am very sorry not to have had the opportunity of seeing you in this country that I might have offered you the reception which at all times is due to you, since I hear that the affairs of the king, my son-in-law, your master, are very well conducted through your good means, on which account you receive honour, and I am greatly pleased. Monsieur the Grand Master, there is over there [in France] a person named Anthoine du Val, who, from the time of my going to France, served the king my husband, —the deceased prince, of good and blessed memory, whom God absolve, —in the office of clerk of the closet; and since his death, has likewise attended me in the same office, in which he has conducted himself very worthily. And since I have heard that, hitherto, he has not been able to gain admission to the same position, in the house of the king my said son-in-law, for which I feel grieved, I determined to make application to you, for this Anthoine du Val; that you will be pleased, at this my request, to cause to be given to him the first vacant office of clerk of the closet, in the household of the said lord, and to hasten to him the letters of retaining, placing him speedily in attendance, so that on the occurrence of the vacancy, none may step in but himself. And what moves me to write to you is, that you have the power to do this, and also that I verily believe you will not refuse me, as I place confidence in you, as well in this, as in greater affairs; praying you very kindly to let him understand that this present, according to my request, has been of service to him. If I had spoken to you by word of mouth, I should have offered the request to you; commending you, Monsieur, to God, whom I pray to give you his grace. Written at Norwich, the 15th day of January. Countersigned De Saint Martin To the Grand Master of France. 31. M ARY TO WOLSEY M ARCH 17, 1528 National Archives (UK). MS SP 1/59/126. Autograph. Secretary hand. The closing is 6 mm below the body. My very good lorde as hertely as I can I commende me unto your good Lordeship / Always thanking the same for the manyfolde kindnes shewed to me and my husbond / Desiring yowe of your good contynuaunce / And where as I amm enformed by my trusty counsaillours Ser Humfrey Banaster knight my Chamberleynn and Humphrey Wingfielde Esquyre that it pleased you for my sake to graunte unto them for the promocionn of a chapleyn of mynn the benefice of Graftonn Flyford in the Countie of Worcester being of the yerely value as I understond of xij markes And that as now Maister Belknap hath caused an Office to be founde of the same / By reason wherof and as I suppose he hath axed orelse entendith to ax the

9780230620308_07_app.indd 189

2/18/2011 3:53:11 PM

190

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

said benefice of the king my brother for a Chapleyn of his / Wherfor I beseche your lordeship to have inn your good remembraunce your saide graunte for my saide Chapleynn and to provide that my said Chapleynn be not by the meanes of the said Maister Belknap disapoynted or put frome the said benefice / And thus our lorde have you my very good lorde in his blissed tuycionn From the Manor of Rysing the xvijth daye of Marche/ [Mary’s hand]

marie quene of france [Fol. 126v]

To my lorde Cardynalles good Lordeship [Two notes in modern hands] 17 March (1516) A letter of Mary Queen of France, Wife of Louis XII and Sister to Henry [VIII] King of England 32. M ARY TO A NNE DE MONTMORENCY JUNE 18, 1528 Bibliothèque Nationale de France. MS Français 2932, fol. 11. Autograph. Secretary hand. Monsieur Le grant maistre / par Reiterees fois / vous ay Importunee pour ung mon serviteur nomme anthoine du val qui autreffois ma servye moy estant en france en lestat du clerc doffice ou Il sest si bien et honnestement conduyt que tousjours depuis lay eu en memoire de sorte que vous ay fait Requeste adce qui votre plaisir feust le voulsissiez colloquer ou pareil estat en la maison du Roy mon beaufilz ou vous avez toute puissance / Dont achunne fois avez fait tresbonne et gracieuse Responce de bouche qui me donne encores occasion de tant plus vous Importunee / et vous prie monsieur le grant maistre tresaffectueusement qui Il ne soit mis en oubly / Et ou cas que depresent Il ny eust nulle place vuyde pour la moins fites le servir atendant la vaccacion dune dicelles / et que nul ne soit prefere devant luy le cas advenant me donnant acongnoistre que ces presentes a ma Requeste luy ayent prouffite / et vous me ferez ung bien grant plaisir qui sera la fin sinon que Je prie notre seigneur monsieur le grant maistre vous donner le comble de voz desirs / Escript alondres le xviije Jour de Juing [Mary’s hand] [St. Martin’s hand, well below Mary’s]

La toute votre marie Desaintmartin [Fol. 11v]

A Monsr la grant maistre de france My lord the grand master, I have repeatedly importuned you on behalf of one of my servants named Anthoine du Val who was once in my service when I was in France, in the office of clerk of the closet, where he so well and honestly conducted himself always since that I have kept him in mind, so that I have requested that it would be your pleasure to place him in a similar position in the house of the

9780230620308_07_app.indd 190

2/18/2011 3:53:11 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

191

king my son-in-law where you have great power. At which time you had made very great and gracious answer by word of mouth that gives me still the occasion to so greatly inconvenience you and I ask you very affectionately, my lord the grand master, that he would not be forgotten, and in case that at present there is no place open at least have him serve while waiting for a vacancy of such a position and that there will be no one preferred before him, this case occurring, giving me to know that these presents at my request should have been profitable to him and you will do me a very great pleasure that will be the last, except that I pray our Lord, my lord grand master, to give you the greatest of your desires. Written in London, the 18th day of June. All yours, Mary By Saint Martin To my lord the Grand Master of France 33. M ARY TO JANE POPINCOURT JUNE 20, 1528 Bibliothèque Nationale de France. MS Français 2932, fol. 3. Autograph. Secretary hand. Ma damoiselle de poupincourt ma bonne amye ·/ Jay Receu voz lettres que mavez envoyees par mon secretaire De St martin / avec la navire de Jais et atournement de teste pour mes ensfans / Dont de ce et aussi de la bonne souvenance que avez eue de moy de bon cueur vous Remercie bien appercevant que ne metez en oubly les biensfaitz du temps passe et la nourriture dentre nous deux enquoy Je vous Reppute tousjours lune des myennes / et me tens plus familliere de vous que de nul autre par dela / par quoy Je vous veulx employer / adce quil vous plaist porter parolle amonsieur le grant maistre en mon nom davoir anthoine du val qui autresfois a este clerc doffice de ma maison en sa tresbonne Recommandacion / et que pour lamour de moy Il le vueillez pourveoir en pareil estat de la maison du Roy mon beaufilz ainsi que plusainpleinn luy escriptz / et vous pris ne vueillez dormir en ce / mais tousjours le solliciter de sorte que Je puisse obtenir ma Requeste envers luy et de temps a autre Je soye parvous advertyr de sa Response ·/ Ce faisant me ferez plaisir fort agreable que Je ne mectray en oubly et de ce soyez en toute asseuree Comme scayt notre seigneur ma bonne amye qui vous ait en sa bonne garde Escript alondres le xxe Jour de Juin / [Mary’s hand] [St. Martin’s hand, well below Mary’s]

votre bonne maistresse et a amye marie Desaintmartin [Fol. 3v]

A Ma damoiselle de poupincourt ma bonne Miss [Mistress] Popincourt, my good friend, I have received your letters that you have sent to me by my secretary De St Martin with the ship of jet and the head ornaments for my children, for which and also for the good remembrance that you have had of me with good heart I thank you well, perceiving that you do not forget the kindnesses of the past and the nurture between us two on which account I

9780230620308_07_app.indd 191

2/18/2011 3:53:12 PM

192

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

always consider you one of my family and conduct myself more familiarly with you than with any other over there [in France], for the sake of which I would like to employ you: that it will please you to bear word in my name to my lord the grand master to have Anthoine du Val, who was formerly the clerk of the closet in my household, in his very good recommendation, and for the love of me he would procure for him the like office in the household of the king, my son-in-law, as I have written to him more fully, and I pray that you would not rest in this, but always solicit him so that I can obtain my request from him, and that from time to time, I may hear from you what he responds. Doing this, you will do me a very agreeable pleasure that I will never forget and of this you may be totally assured, as knows our Lord, who have you, my good friend, in his good keeping. Written at London the 20th day of June. Your good mistress and friend Mary By Saint Martin To my good Mistress Popincourt 34. M ARY TO ANNE DE MONTMORENCY AUGUST 8, 1528 Bibliothèque Nationale de France. MS Français 3002, fol. 48. Autograph. Secretary hand. Monsieur Le grant maistre ·/ george hampton lun de mes gentilz homes present porteur / ma Remonstre que en certains affaires quil avoit pardela pour le fait de mon douaire ·/ se Retira pardevers vous en mon nom pour ladvancement diceulx / la ou vous vous estes monstre fort affectionne luy donnant bien a congnoistre la bonne amour que me portez / car par votre bon moien a eu briefue expedicion / De ce dont Il vous Requist vous en Remerciant tresgrandement / vous priant que ce soit votre plaisir y voulloir contynuer ou le besoing sera / et dont Il vous Requerra de ma part: Ce faisere monsieur le grant maistre me ferez plaisir tresagreable et grant amoy ou Je vous pourroye faire le semblable Je le feroye de tresbon cueur Ainsi que scayt notre seigneur qui vous doint ce que plus desirez Escript au chasteau de Wingfeld le viijme Jour daoust Lan xve xxviij [Mary’s hand] [St. Martin’s hand, well below Mary’s]

la plus que votre marie Desaintmartin

My lord the grand master, George Hampton, one of my gentlemen and the present bearer, represented me in certain business matters that he had over there regarding my dower, left them with you in my name for their advancement, in which you have shown yourself greatly affectionate, showing him the good love that you bear me, for by your good means he had short expedition of that which he asked of you. Thanking you greatly and praying you that it will be your pleasure to desire to continue such when the need will occur and because he will ask you for my part. To do this, my lord grand master, will do me very agreeable pleasure and guarantee on my part that where I can do likewise for you, I will do it of very good heart, as much as God knows, who give you that

9780230620308_07_app.indd 192

2/18/2011 3:53:12 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

193

which is most desired. Written at Wingfield Castle the 8th day of August, the year 1528. the most that is yours, Mary By Saint Martin 35. M ARY TO A NNE DE MONTMORENCY DECEMBER 26, 1528 Bibliothèque Nationale de France MS Français 3014, fol. 28. Autograph. Secretary hand. Monsieur Le grant maistre Je vous ay par cidevant fait Requeste par lettres ace que votre bon plaisir feust en faveur de moy aider a pourveoir et colloquer au seruice du Roy mon beaufilz en lestat et office ·/ de lun des clercs doffice de sa maison / anthoine du val qui autresfois ma servye en pareil estat / ou Il sest treshonnese[te] conduyt et gouverne qui a este la principalle cause qui ma men vous en escripre ·/ et aussi que Je vouldroys son bien & advancement afin que de moy eust tousjours souvenance ·/ ou vous feistes tresbonne Responce dont Je vous Remercie ·/ mesmement donnastes charge a catillon le vous Rememorer ce quil na peu fer ainsi que Jentens a Raison daucuns empeschemens et voiages quil a depuis faitz en Italye ·/ par quoy nen ay sceu entendre la discucion / A ceste cause monsieur le grant maistre Je vous prie de Rechief bien affectueusement quavez mondit Serviteur pour Recommande ondit estat de clerc doffice ·/ Ce pose quil ny ait nulle place vaccante ·/ neantmoins fites le servir sans gaiges ou estat / se mieulx ne peult estre Jusques a Icelle advenie / Ce pource que Je scay de vray quen avez la puissance et que en plus grant chose me vouldriez fer plaisir Je vous en veulx ung peu Importunee / ce que pourrez envers moy faire de votre couste en chose ou Il vous plaira memployer / Priant dieu monsieur le grant maistre vous avoir en sa tresdigne garde Escript a londres le xxvime Jour de decembre Lan xvc xxviij [Mary’s hand] [St. Martin’s hand, well below Mary’s]

La toute votre marie Desaintmartin [Fol. 28v]

A Monsr la grant maistre de france My lord grand master I have heretofore by letters made request of you which it was your good pleasure to help me to procure and place in the service of the king my son-in-law in the estate and office of one of the clerks of the closet in his household, Anthoine du Val, who formerly has served me in like estate where he conducted and governed himself very honestly which was the principal cause which led me to write you, and also that I would like his wellbeing and advancement in order that he would always have remembrance of me. At which you made a very good response for which I thank you, likewise you gave charge to Catillon to remind you of it, which he could not do as I understand by reason of some

9780230620308_07_app.indd 193

2/18/2011 3:53:12 PM

194

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

obstacles and journeys which he has since made in Italy, for the sake of which he could not hear the discussion. For this reason my lord grand master, I pray you once again very affectionately that you will recommend my said servitor for the said estate of the clerk of the closet; supposing that there was be no vacant place, nevertheless to have him do the service without wages or place, if the better cannot be had, until such happens; this because I know truly that you have the power and that in any great business you would like to do me pleasure. I wish to pester you in this a little so that you will be able to count me among your party in any thing when it will please you to employ me. Praying God, my lord grand master, to have you in his very good keeping. Written in London, the 26th day of December, the year 1528. All yours, Mary By Saint Martin To my lord the Grand Master of France 36. M ARY TO HENRY UNDATED, PROBABLY 1521–1528

© The British Library Board. MS Harley 6986, fol. 11r. Holograph. Paper. 203 × 305 mm. Tiny traces of the wax seal remain on fol. 11v. Mary’s closing is 19 mm below the body. See Chapter 4, note 243 for information on dating. my most derest and best belawyd brother I humbly recommand un to yowr grace Sire so yt tys that I have bene very secke and ele ates for the wyche I was fayne to send for master peter the feysyon for to have hoplen me of the dessays that I have and has had how be yt I am Rathar wors than better were for I trowst showrly to come up to Lon London with my lord for and yf I shold tary her I am sowr I shold never assperre the sekenys that have wer for Ser I wolde be the gladther a grete dele to com thether by cawse I wold be glad to se yowr grace the wyche I do thyncke long for to do for I have bene a grete wyle owt of yowr syte and now I trost I shal not be so long a gene for the syte of yowr grace ys to me the grettys comforte to me that may be possybel no mor to yowr grace at thys tyme bwt I pray god send yow yowr hartys dessyr and showrly to the syte of yow by yowr lowyng su[ster] mary the frenche qu[een] [Fol. 11v] To the kynges grace 37. M ARY TO FRANCIS JUNE 13, 1530 Unable to locate this manuscript, I have used a text preserved in Nouvelle Archives de l’Art Français, published by the Société de l’histoire de l’art Français, 155. Monseigneur mon bon filz, le présent porteur maistre Ambroise, paynctre du très-révérandissime légat de France, archevesque de Sens, comme suis advertye, bien congnoissez, ayant en volonté de venir par deçà devers le Roy, mon très cher

9780230620308_07_app.indd 194

2/18/2011 3:53:12 PM

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

195

et très honoré frère et moy, à son arrivee à fait de grands presents tant à luy que à moy, passans en singularité plus que ne sauroye estimer, mesmement en choses concernans le fait de son art, au très grand contentement de mondit seigneur et frère et de moy. A raison de quoy, monseigneur mon beau filz, non-seulement pour le bon sens et savoir, qui par approbacion a esté congneue estre de plus grande expérience que nul qui fut jamais par decà, mais aussi du bon voulloir et affection qu’il a eu de me venir visiter et faire chose qui grandement a esté à ma resjouissance, je vous prie tant affectueusement que faire puis, pour et en faveur de moy avoir ledit Ambroise en vostre très singuliere recommandation en tous ses affaires dont il a nécessairement besoing, congnoissant qu’il est ung homme qu’on ne doit oublyer, veu ce que dit est, luy donnant par vous à congnoistre que à ma requeste ceste ma rescription luy a esté prouffitable. Ce faisant, me ferét très singulier plaisir ainsi que benoist fils de Dieu sçait, qui, monseigneur mon beau filz, vous ait et maintiengne en sa très saincte et très digne garde avec longue vie. Escript à Londres, le xiiie jour de juing l’an mil D XXX. Vostre bonne mère. Marie My lord my good son, the present bearer Master Ambroise, painter of the most reverend legate of France, the archbishop of Sens, as I am told you know well, having the desire to come over here to the king, my very dear and very honored brother and me, at his arrival made great presents as much to him as to me, passing unique, more than I would know how to estimate, likewise in things concerning the accomplishment of his art, to the very great pleasure of my said lord and brother and of me. By reason of which, my lord and son-in-law, not only for the good sense and skill, which by general acclaim he has been known to be of such great experience that no one here will ever see the like again, but also of the good will and affection that he had for me to come visit and to do something that was greatly to my rejoicing, I pray you as affectionately as is possible, for, and in favor of me, to have the said Ambroise in your very singular recommendation in all his affairs, which he certainly needs, knowing that he is a man that one should not forget, considering that which is said, giving him to know by you that it is at my request, that it is my writing that has been profitable to him. That done, it will do me very singular pleasure as the blessed Son of God knows, who, my lord and son-in-law, have and maintain you in his very holy and very worthy keeping with long life. Written at London, the 13th day of June, year 1530. Your good mother, Mary 38. M ARY TO VISCOUNT LISLE MARCH 30, 1533 © The British Library Board. MS Cotton Vespasian F.III, fol. 40r. Autograph. Secretary hand. Paper, cropped to 102 × 267 mm, and containing a watermark of a 5-petaled flower crowned. Written in landscape orientation. [Mary’s signature is in the top left margin, slightly overlapping the “R” in “Right”]

9780230620308_07_app.indd 195

2/18/2011 3:53:13 PM

196

Appendix: Mary’s Letters

marie the frynche quene [Scribe’s hand] Right trusty and right welbelovid Cousin we grete you well Desiring you at this our intercession ye wolbe so good lorde unto John Williams this berer as to admyt hym in to the Rome of a Souldier in Calice with the wages of viijd by the daye Assuring you Cousin in your so doing ye shal shew unto us full good and acceptable pleasor which we shal right willingly acquit at your desire in tyme commyng trusting the condicions haviour and personage of the said John be suche as ye shalbe contented with the same Praying you Cousin of your good mynde herin ye wole advertise us by this berer in your writing At London the xxx th day of marche [Fol. 40v] To our right trusty and right welbeluvid Cousin the Vicount Lisle Lord lieutenunt of Calice

9780230620308_07_app.indd 196

2/18/2011 3:53:13 PM

NOTES

Introduction 1. Michael Drayton, Englands Heroicall Epistles, fol. 64v. I have regularized the use of uu/w, i/j, and u/v throughout. 2. For Drayton, see fol. 61v for the reference to Hero and Leander and fol. 64v for the line that evokes Juliet. I have cited Shakespeare’s 1597 edition of Romeo and Juliet, fol. C3v. 3. Ford, Suffolk Garland, 124. 4. Although The Tudors collapses Henry’s two sisters into one princess named Margaret, her story is essentially a distorted sensationalized version of Mary’s marriages. 5. For Mary’s chief biographies, see Green’s Lives; Richardson’s WQ ; Chapman’s The Sisters of Henry VIII, and Perry’s Sisters. Green is an excellent source; though dated, her information is scrupulously documented. Richardson’s work is also helpful, but some of his conclusions are unwarranted based on the evidence. Perry provides helpful background but focuses on Mary and her sister Margaret largely in terms of their relationship to their brother. Barbara Harris’s “Power, Profit, and Passion” provides an excellent overview of Mary’s marriages and the courtly romances that set the tone for Mary’s chivalric rhetoric. 6. March 18, 1496, is almost certainly Mary’s birth date. Green argues it falls in March 1496 because the first record pertaining to Mary (for payment of a quarterly salary to a nurse, Anne Skeron) occurs that June; since such payments were made biannually, March is the nearest approximation (Lives), 2. Perry cites a note in Margaret Beaufort’s Book of Hours giving Mary’s birthday as March 18, 1495: “Hodie nata Maria tertia filia Henricis VII, 1495” (qtd. in Sisters), 8. However, in the sixteenth century, New Year began on March 25; by modern dating, we would consider the year 1496. CSPV records a letter written March 2, 1499, which reports that Henry VII rejected Ludovico Sforza’s suit for a marriage between Mary and his son, saying that she is only three (I, 790). Richardson prefers 1495, based on a letter from Henry VIII to Leo X where he gives Mary’s age as thirteen in 1508 (WQ 3). See L&P, I.ii, 3139. However, the Latin phrase Henry uses to describe Mary is vague: “cum vix annum tertium decimum” (scarcely thirteen years) (qtd. in Gairdner, “Spousells”), xv. Henry’s letter is also inconclusive since he mentions that Charles, who was born on February 24, 1500, was nine years old at the time. Given the English calendar, Henry may have reckoned Charles’s birth date as 1499. Whether Henry was correct about the four-year age difference or wrong about the dates is impossible to tell. A last piece of evidence comes from Erasmus’s visit to Eltham sometime in late 1499, when he mentions that Mary is four, but since he states that Prince Henry, who was born in 1491, was nine, his reckoning may be treated only as an estimate. See Nichols, Epistles, 201.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 197

2/18/2011 3:54:48 PM

198

Notes to Pages 2–5

7. Drayton refers to Louis as “old and decrepite” in the argument (fol. 61v). 8. The only scholarly treatment of Brandon’s life is Steven Gunn’s CB. 9. Perry writes that “she had worked herself to a pitch of nervous hysteria by the time Suffolk arrived . . . [her letters] indicate her desperate frame of mind” (111). In Six Wives, Starkey describes Catherine of Aragon’s reaction to Mary’s marriage: “Probably she felt pity for the childish excitement of her sister-in-law and womanly sympathy for what she suspected Mary might face in the marriage bed,” 152. David Loades describes Mary’s choice to marry Brandon thus: “with a courage born equally of lust and desperation, the dowager queen virtually forced him to marry her secretly in mid-February. It was the one decisive action of her life, and it nearly ruined both of them” (s.v. “Mary”). 10. de Grazia, “What is a Work?”; Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric; and Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles. 11. Davis, Fiction in the Archives; Steen, “Behind the Arras,” 37. 12. Dated February 15, 1515. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fols. 248v–249r. Most of Mary’s letters are preserved in the British Library’s Cotton collection, which suffered greatly in a fire in 1731, resulting in frequent places where the words are too scorched to read, if not lost altogether. Wherever possible I have compared my transcriptions against other sources, such as Green’s Letters and Ellis’s Original Letters. (Since Green also wrote Lives, to avoid confusion, I have used the name Green in conjunction with this text, even though she wrote Letters under her maiden name Wood.) I have silently supplied obvious letters but where large gaps occur, I have indicated conjecture with brackets. Also, I have silently expanded scribal abbreviations, added punctuation, and regularized u/v and i/j throughout the letters cited in the text. 13. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 163r. Undated, February 1515. Unfortunately, nearly all the letters pertaining to the marriage crisis, while clearly written in the spring of 1515, are undated, perhaps deliberately. Wherever possible I have approximated the dates. 14. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 183r. Undated, probably February 1515. 15. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 251r. Undated, probably March 1515. 16. This pattern continued when the couple returned to England; on at least four occasions, the two sent virtually the same letter, nearly word for word, when asking for favors. A scribe penned each missive, and then each signed his/her respective letter. For example, when Mary had difficulty collecting her dower in 1525, they both wrote to Wolsey. L&P, IV.i, 1542 and 1543. For others, see L&P, IV.i, 1641 and 1642; IV.ii, 4392, 4615, and 4616. 17. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 186r. Undated, probably February 1515. 18. Literature was a strong influence on Mary’s epistolary technique, but the tradition of the formal ars dictaminis cannot be discounted, nor can the history of women writing letters. See Joan Ferrante, “ ‘Licet longinquis,” 881. 19. See Carley, The Libraries of Henry VIII and The Books of King Henry VIII and His Wives. For Kipling, see The Triumph of Honour: Burgundian Origins of the English Renaissance, and for Backhouse, see “Illuminated Manuscripts associated with Henry VII.” 20. Lesclaircissement, fol. 129r. 21. Lns. 1–6, Heroides, 1. Palsgrave specifies that he uses Octavien de Saint-Gelais’s translation of the Heroides, which was printed in 1503 in Paris by Anthoine Vérard: Epitres d’Ovide. All references to the French translation of the Heroides are taken from this edition. All translations, unless otherwise specified, are my own.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 198

2/18/2011 3:54:49 PM

Notes to Pages 6–11

199

22. “cuius causa inventa res ipsa est, ut certiores faceremus absentis si quid esset quod eos scire aut nostra aut ipsorum interesset.” Ad Fam. I.48. Cicero, Ad Familiares, 234–5. 23. See Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 150. Jardine elaborates on the connection between the two writers and quotes Jerome’s Latin letter: “Sola, inquit, res est, quae homines absentes praesentes facit” (266, n. 10). 24. I borrow Jardine’s phrase; see Erasmus, 153. Gary Schneider also discusses the letter’s complicated relationship to issues of speech and presence at length in The Culture of Epistolarity, especially pages 28–37. 25. Jardine, Erasmus, 151. 26. Jardine, Erasmus, 151; Lerer, Courtly Letters, 11. 27. Schneider elaborates on this issue, noting how letters often traveled far outside their initial circles, even making their way into miscellanies and commonplace books. The Culture of Epistolarity, 22–27. 28. Summit, Lost Property, 168. 29. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 246v. Undated, probably March 1515. 30. See Schutte, Kuehn, and Seidel Menchi, Time, Space, and Women’s Lives. 31. See Daybell’s Women Letter-Writers in Tudor England and Crabb and Couchman’s Women’s Letters Across Europe. 32. See English Aristocratic Women. 33. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 253r. Undated, January or February 1515. 34. “A Narrative of the Justs” in Leland’s De Rebus Brittanicis Collectanea, vol. V, 357. Leland was an antiquary who was born ca. 1503 and died in 1552. In 1533, Henry commissioned him to search the libraries of the realm for various manuscripts. His Collectanea wasn’t printed until the early eighteenth century. 35. Kipling, Triumph of Honour, 127. See pages 127–131 for a full description of the tournament pageantry. Also, Richardson notes that records indicate rich new dresses were ordered for the princess, WQ , 18. 36. See the CSPS, I,293. 37. Kipling, Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne, Book II, lns. 113–116, p. 15. 38. Ibid., Book II. The red dragon appears in line 180, Pollicy’s speech in lines 201, 202–3, pp. 17–18. 39. Ibid., xv. 40. Ibid., Book II, lns. 187–188, p. 17. 41. Ibid., Book II, lns. 594–597, p. 29. 42. See for example, CSPS, I, 221. 43. Spectacle, Pageantry, and Early Tudor Policy, 104. 44. “Eternal Peace, Occasional War,” 45. 45. CSPV, II, 918. 46. Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne, 31. 47. “The Fyancells of Margaret” in Leland’s De Rebus Brittanicis Collectanea, vol. IV.See pp. 258–9 for records of Mary and p. 263 for Brandon’s jousting. 48. Ibid., 258. 49. Persuasive Fictions: Faction, Faith and Political Culture in the Reign of Henry VIII, 109–110. 50. See CSPS, I, 588, where Ferdinand acknowledges Fuensalida’s report on her treatment. 51. Green, Letters, I, 138–139. 52. The English ambassador John Stile had apparently protested to Ferdinand that the reports of Catherine’s mistreatment were overstated, that the princess

9780230620308_08_not.indd 199

2/18/2011 3:54:50 PM

200

Notes to Pages 11–18

“and her servants had enough to eat and to drink, and were provided with the necessaries of life.” CSPS, II, 1. 53. CSPS, I, 398. 54. BL Cott. Vespasian C.XII, fol. 283v. 55. Green, Lives, 4. 56. Mattingly notes that the ambassador Fuensalida forbade Catherine to attend the betrothal ceremony and she defied him, saying that she “had no wish to offer gratuitous insults to Mary” Catherine of Aragon, 110. 57. Carmeliano wrote a Latin account of the betrothal and its accompanying ceremonies; the Latin version and an English translation were printed by Richard Pynson. In the Latin version, Hoc presenti libello . . . Dominam Mariam, the reference to Mary and Catherine can be found on fol. D3r. In the only extant copy of the English translation, which is lacking several leaves, The solempnitites & triumphes doon, the reference is on fol. C1v. 58. Green, Letters, I, 140. 59. Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort had recommended to ambassador De Puebla that Catherine learn to speak French from Margaret of Austria while she was visiting Spain. CSPS, I, p. 156. In 1505, Henry’s ambassadors to Spain reported that they had told Ferdinand she could “speak some [English] and understand much more” (CSPS, I, p. 362). 60. Green, Letters, I, 133. Her letter is dated 1505, to Ferdinand. 61. See Mattingly, Catherine, 75–78. 62. Green, Letters, I, 150. The full text of the first letter runs pp. 145–7 and the second, secret letter, from pp. 148–154. 63. Undated, probably March 1515. NA SP 1/10/79r-80r. 64. NA E30/1446. See also L&P, IV.ii, 2744. 65. Mary would have had easy access to Gower’s work. Aside from its popularity, her grandmother had a volume of Gower, probably the Confessio Amantis. See Powell, “The Lady Margaret Beaufort and her Books,” 202. Her brother Henry also had a copy; see Carley, Libraries of Henry VIII, 294, item 186. In 1510, Wynkyn de Worde printed Robert Copland’s translation, Apollonius of Tyre. See Bennett, English Books and Readers, 162, 191. References are to Russell Peck’s edition of the Confessio Amantis. 66. Confessio Amantis, VIII.894–896.

1 A Queenly Education 1. Fol. A2r. 2. Lns. 62–76, fol. A6r-v. Kipling describes the Tudor symbolism in Triumph of Honour, 133–134. 3. Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy, 66–68. 4. See Kipling’s Triumph of Honour, Anglo’s Spectacle, Pageantry, and Tudor Policy, and Sharpe’s Selling the Tudor Monarchy. Anglo cautions against overstating the influence of such propaganda, citing the limited audience for such spectacles (xi). However, word would have spread, as Sharpe points out, not only through the advent of print, but also because of the great numbers of people—ambassadors, visitors, and servants—who had access to the palaces and the increasing fascination with the person of the king (140–141).

9780230620308_08_not.indd 200

2/18/2011 3:54:50 PM

Notes to Pages 18–21

201

5. CA MS R.36, fol. 124r. Richard Firth Green transcribes the letter in “A Joust in Honour of the Queen of May,” 386–9. Kipling refutes Green, demonstrating that the letter does correspond to the “Justes of May and June,” 158–62. I thank Robert Yorke for these references. 6. Jones, Oxford Book of Sixteenth-Century Verse, 52–54. 7. Nichols, Epistles of Erasmus, 201. 8. Starkey notes that it would have been most unusual for this to be the case. See Doran and Starkey, Man and Monarch, 25. 9. Dowling, Humanism in the age of Henry VIII, 12–15. 10. Doran and Starkey, Man and Monarch, 29–37, 44–45. 11. Green notes that account books record payments to a schoolmaster for Mary starting in 1499. (Lives 2–3). For further references to Mary’s education, see Richardson, WQ , 22–4. For Miller and Yavneh, see Sibling Relations, 2. 12. Man and Monarch, 29. 13. Nicolas, Privy Purse Expenses, 12. 14. English Aristocratic Women, 32. 15. Margaret was known for educating noble children fostered in her household. See Michalove, “Equal in Opportunity?” in Women’s Education in Early Modern Europe, 57. However, as Jones and Underwood argue, there is no evidence that Beaufort directly oversaw the royal nursery. Nevertheless, she did see to the education of the children of her household, including the children of the chapel. See The King’s Mother, 13, 167. 16. Richardson, WQ , 23. In a June 20, 1528 letter to Popincourt, Mary refers to their upbringing together and describes an affectionate longstanding relationship. See BNF MS Français 2932, fol. 3. Elizabeth of York’s Privy Purse accounts record payments for mending two gowns for “Johanne Popyncote” in June 1502. Nicolas, Privy Purse Expenses, 23. 17. Stein suggests that he was teaching Mary since 1512 to explain the year’s wages given on the New Year. John Palsgrave, 4. 18. Green confirms Mary’s knowledge of Latin (Lives 3), as does Richardson, but he incorrectly cites Richard Hyrde’s introduction to Margaret More Roper’s translation of Erasmus, which compliments the mother of a Frances S. and her knowledge of Latin, (23, 31). However, Betty Travitsky’s candidate for Frances S., Frances Staverton, More’s niece, is a better identification than Mary (Paradise of Women), 35. Such a false association does not negate the probability of Mary’s familiarity with Latin, especially given our knowledge of the education provided most other Tudor children and that Catherine of Aragon, Mary’s frequent companion, was able to read Latin. Mary’s tutor Palsgrave was later engaged to give Henry Fitzroy, Henry VIII’s illegitimate son, a classical education, so he was certainly capable of instructing Mary in Latin. Additionally, Margaret Beaufort, who regretted not knowing the language, may well have ensured her granddaughter did not suffer the same regret (Krug, Reading Families, 66). Krug also notes that Beaufort may have developed a limited proficiency by reading her Book of Hours and hearing the prayers aloud (101). Isabella of Naples wrote in Latin when begging Mary’s assistance for her son (BL Cott. Vespasian F.III, fol. 50). That alone would not indicate proficiency in Latin, given the availability of secretaries, but it is one more piece of evidence, since Isabella required a shared tongue to make her plea. Mattingly contends that Catherine of Aragon sought to create a culture of learning and

9780230620308_08_not.indd 201

2/18/2011 3:54:50 PM

202

19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

28.

29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

34.

Notes to Pages 21–22 persuaded Mary to resume study of the language, but he offers no source for his assertion (Catherine of Aragon), 188. On Henry as book collector, see Kipling, Triumph of Honour, 1–13. See also Backhouse, “Illuminated Manuscripts,” 175–187. “histoires et aultres chouses apartenant a ung noble et saige prince.” Qtd in Carley’s Libraries of Henry VIII, xxvi. Carley’s magisterial Libraries of Henry VIII records in detail the books that made up Henry’s libraries at different royal residences. See pp. 3–29 for the Richmond catalogue. Guy, Tudor England, 77; Krug, Reading Families, 91–92. See also Kipling, Triumph of Honour, for more on the Burgundian courts and chivalry. For more listings, see Henri Omont, “Les Manuscrits Français,” and Kipling’s “Henry VII and the Origins of Tudor Patronage,” 117–164. See Carley, Books of King Henry VIII, 21. Ibid., 23. Rebecca Krug notes that “Books of hours were especially popular as teaching aids because they were relatively simple and because they were designed to be used repeatedly throughout the day” (Reading Families), 70. See Bodl. Ashmolean MS 1116 for an account of Henry masquing as Hercules when Mary was with him (fol. 102v). Tapestries at the christening of Mary’s daughter Frances depict the story of Hercules. BL Eger. 985, fol. 63v. In 1513, Henry VIII commissioned Richard Pynson to print Lydgate’s Siege of Troy. Moreover, one choirbook belonging to Henry includes five separate versions of Dido’s lament after Aeneas betrayed her (Man and Monarch),71, 67. Powell, “The Lady Margaret Beaufort and her Books,” 201-2, especially n. 23. Powell makes a convincing argument for a French translation of Boccaccio’s De Casibus Virorum Illustrium (202, n. 25). For Boccaccio, Genesis and Froissart, see Jones and Underwood, The King’s Mother, 241. From Margaret’s will, qtd. in Powell, “The Lady Margaret Beaufort and her Books,” 202. Jones and Underwood, The King’s Mother, 181–186. Jones and Underwood, The King’s Mother, 173. Krug, Reading Families, 77–8. A.I. Doyle notes in the appendix to Stephen Scrope’s translation of the Othea that it is uncertain which version of the book was bequeathed to Margaret, the Scrope translation prepared for Humphrey Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, Anne’s father, or “the version re-dedicated to a ‘high princess’ (perhaps herself [Anne] or her mother), or even the French” (Othea), 126. Doyle also speculates that Anne Neville (Vere’s mother) may also have shared Chaucer’s Troilus and The Romant of the Rose with Margaret at some point (126–127). Krug makes a detailed argument for such book sharing and further posits that Margaret became such a noted patroness of printed books out of a perceived moral obligation to share books with others (Reading Families), 77–83. For copies of the Othea at Richmond, see Carley, Libraries of Henry VIII, pp. 12 and 14. If Mary were familiar with the illustrated manuscripts of the Othea, her education could have gone even further, since the Othea literally illustrates a woman writer’s use of the letter to advise readers on political events. According to Hindman, the illuminations in Christine’s presentation copies use heraldic symbols to link Louis of Orleans, the dedicatee, with Hector, the recipient of Othea’s letter. Since the illustrations of Othea also strongly resemble portraits

9780230620308_08_not.indd 202

2/18/2011 3:54:51 PM

Notes to Pages 22–26

203

of Christine, her message is clear. Like Hector, Louis should heed Othea/ Christine’s lessons on chivalric and moral behavior in order to rule well. Hindman argues that even after Louis’s assassination, Christine maintained the illustrated references in order to use the duke as a symbol to inspire the queen, the dauphin, and the Duke of Berry to govern France wisely (xx). See Christine de Pizan’s Epistre Othea. Desmond and Sheingorn’s Myth, Montage, & Visuality in Late Medieval Manuscript Culture also argues that the images of Othea perform visual gestures that communicate meaning more effectively than would a verbal description, 8. 35. “Car je sçay qu’a tous jours seras / Le plus preus des preus et aras / Sur tous autres la renommee, / Mais que de toy je soye amee.” Quotations are taken from Gabriella Parussa’s Epistre Othea, lns. 50–53, p. 198; the English is my translation. 36. Summit discusses Christine’s influence in England, while arguing that the obscuring of Christine’s authorship in many transmissions of her text de-emphasizes her status as a female author. See Lost Property, 61–108. Although Summit’s argument is compelling, it doesn’t negate the likelihood of Mary’s familiarity with Christine as an author of the work, since she would have known Christine through French editions belonging to her father, brother, and grandmother in addition to Scrope’s English translation. 37. The Lisle Letters: An Abridgement, 116, letter 90. Ed. Muriel St. Clare Byrne. This particular letter survives as notes to her secretary, not a final draft. 38. Hoby, Book of the Courtier, 48–49. In Italian, see ll Cortegiano del Conte Baldessar Castiglione, 30–2. 39. Michalove, “Equal in Opportunity?” 58. 40. “Parmi ben che in lei sia poi piu necessaria la bellezza che nel Cortegiano, perchè in vero molto manca a quella donna a cui manca la bellezza” (173). 41. English Aristocratic Women, 220–221. 42. Dumitrescu, The Early Tudor court, 82. 43. Green, Lives, 2. 44. Nicolas, Privy Purse Expenses, 22. 45. Green, Lives, 2–3. 46. See Perry, Sisters, 33, and CSPS, I, 395 and 406. On July 1, 1504, Henry ordered one of his gentlemen to disburse 100 pounds a month for Catherine, and that November, wrote Ferdinand and Isabella to defend himself against charges of penuriousness by explaining that he was spending the same on Mary as he did on Catherine. 47. English Aristocratic Women, 27. 48. Michalove, “Equal in Opportunity?” 48. 49. Richardson, WQ , 23; Perry, Sisters, 32. 50. Harris, English Aristocratic Women, 230. 51. Vives, Instruction of a Christian Woman, 16. 52. BL Cott. Vespasian, C.XII, fol. 281r. 53. BL Cott. Vespasian, C.XII, fol. 283v. See Gairdner, “A Narrative of the Reception,” for a complete transcription of the chronicle, 282–303. 54. Fol. 285v; Gairdner, 292, 302–3. 55. Gairdner, 289. 56. Fols. 285v-287v; Gairdner, 294–300. 57. Fol. 281r; Gairdner, 282. 58. Guy’s Tudor England offers a useful overview, 76–77.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 203

2/18/2011 3:54:51 PM

204

Notes to Pages 26–28

59. David Starkey explains in detail the conflict over the Castilian throne after Isabella’s death, particularly with regard to Catherine’s actions and their consequences (Six Wives), 88–93. He plausibly explains an otherwise odd incident during the visit—Catherine’s request for a dance with Philip was rudely rebuffed—by noting Philip’s continuing resentment over Catherine’s support of Ferdinand. He also interprets Mary sitting with Catherine as a sign of “sisterly comfort” (92). 60. Fol. 285v; Gairdner, 293. 61. Gairdner, 301. 62. Gairdner, 302. 63. Gairdner, 301. 64. Jones and Underwood note that Margaret and Mary “were serenaded by King Philip’s lutenists” (The King’s Mother), 79, and Dumitrescu details the reward of twenty shillings Margaret gave to the minstrels (Early Tudor court), 109. 65. “Bella gerant alii; tu, felix Austria, nube. / Nam quae Mars aliis, dat tibi regna Venus.” Qtd. in Warnicke, Marrying of Anne of Cleves, 5. 66. CSPV, I, 790. 67. CSPM, 593. 68. Kipling, Triumph of Honour, 132–133. 69. CSPV, I, 887. 70. CSPS, I, 498. Henry’s ambassador John Stile reports on April 26, 1509, that he had given Carmeliano’s account of the betrothal to Ferdinand, to whom the news was unwelcome (L&P, I.i, 6). Ferdinand continued to protest the match until Henry VIII was married to Catherine; on May 18, 1509, he wrote Catherine that to show his good will to her husband, he agreed to the marriage (L&P, I.i, 39). 71. CSPS, I, 558 contains an outline of the full terms in English. For the Latin text of the treaty, see Rymer’s Foedera, Vol. 5, 239–243. 72. Turpyn, Chronicle of Calais, 6–7. 73. “Reveillez vous cueurs endormis / qui des angloiz estes amys / chantons ave maria.” BL Cott. Julius A.III, fol. 2v. The manuscript has been mislabeled as celebrating the marriage of Mary to Louis, but as Green points out, the references to the Burgundians and Flemings rejoicing and to Mary joining the Toison d’Or all clearly establish the song as appertaining to the marriage with Charles, who was archduke of Burgundy as well as prince of Castile (Lives), 7, nt. 4. 74. “Car dicy a mille foiz dix / ne sera ny fut au pais / tel paix tel lignaige” (fol. 3r). 75. CSPS, I, 587. 76. CSPS, I, 594–597. 77. See page 2r-v. The solempnitites & triumphes doon. The only extant copy of the Spousells is missing scattered pages and those that remain contain only a few signatures to identify pagination; therefore I have numbered the pages myself, starting with the title page. James Gairdner edited the text as “The Spousells of the Princess Mary.” See also the ambassadors’ letter to Margaret of Austria, dated December 7, 1508, in R3&H7, I, 69. 78. See BL Addit. 33748, fol. 6r. This manuscript contains a life of Mary compiled by Nicholas Carlisle, mostly in his own hand, but including a few documents collected by others. It opens with a letter from Carlisle to a Lord Herbert dated August 27, 1810, in which he states his plans regarding the biography and requesting Herbert’s assistance clarifying a few matters using documents from his library. In this section, Carlisle relies on Joseph Ames’s translation of Pietro Carmeliano’s account of the event.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 204

2/18/2011 3:54:51 PM

Notes to Pages 29–32

205

79. Spousells, fol. 9r-v. 80. Bodl. Douce MS 198, fols. 145–57. It was printed by Richard Pynson; see Hoc presenti libello. See Gairdner’s introduction to “The Spousells” for a full account of the manuscript and print history (iii-vi) and L&P, I.i, 6, for Ferdinand’s receipt of the poem. 81. Solemnes cerimonie, fol. 103v. I have used Green’s translation from Lives, 11. 82. Fol. 7r-v. I have followed Gairdner’s conjecture in reconstructing the words lost to a hole in the text. 83. Spousells, fol 9v, my translation. 84. Written December 10, 1508, received January 15, 1509. CSPV, I, 917. 85. CSPV, I, 899. 86. CSPS, I, 600. 87. When Louis dismissed Mary’s English attendants, Palsgrave returned to London. See Stein, John Palsgrave, 4. Mary did not neglect her former teacher and on two separate occasions, wrote to Wolsey to request patronage for Palsgrave (NA SP 1/9/158; NA SP 1/10/106). 88. Lesclaircissement de la langue francoyse, fol. A2r. 89. Lesclaircissement, fol. A2v. 90. Stein, John Palsgrave, 174–175. 91. All of these texts were written early enough for Mary to have read them before departing for France; Illustrations de Gaul, printed between 1511 and 1513, is the latest. Moreover, there are records of Chartier’s works in libraries at Richmond and Westminster, as well as the Illustrations and works by Ovid. See Carley, Libraries of Henry VIII, 36, 69. Laidlaw notes that the Quadrilogue, Esperance, and Lay de paix are amongst the works in the collected Oeuvres listed in Carley, 36, item 10 (Poetical Works), 142–3. 92. Kipling notes that Palsgrave’s emphasis on Lemaire is especially understandable given that at the time of Mary’s wedding to Louis, Lemaire was France’s chief poet-historian; his L’Amant Vert was so popular it had run through three editions in 1510, 1512, and 1513. He argues that Mary’s wedding helped Lemaire become known in England where his work influenced Skelton (Triumph of Honour), 24–26. For more on the influence of Ovid’s Heroides on French authors, see LeBlanc’s essay “Queen Anne in the Lonely, Tear-Soaked Bed of Penelope.” 93. Chartier, Le quadrilogue invectif, 9–17. 94. “hault couraige,” “leur oiseuse lacheté,” “forlignez de la constance de voz peres” (9). 95. “Je ne veuil voz excusacions et deffences plus longuement escouter, ne en voz discors et descharges l’un vers l’autre ne gist pas la ressource de mon infortune” (57–58). 96. “Iceluy bon Prince ancien sappuyoit sur lespaule senestre de sa fille la belle Polyxene. Et avec luy estoit la noble Andromacha, femme du feu Prince Hector et ses deux jeunes enfans . . . Ce spectacle estoit piteux et miserable à mervailles”(184). Lemaire de Belges, Oeuvres, 184. In Book XXIV of Homer’s Iliad, Zeus actually orders Priam to go alone to ransom his son (Fagles, 593, lns. 176–183) 97. “ne scay je nulle Princess vivant aujourdhuy sur terre (sauve la bonne paix des autres) qui puist en ce premier livre plus convenablement tenir le lieu de dame Pallas, que ta personne, Princesse illustre; ne aussi ne scay je, qui mieux puist figurer le personnage du tresbel enfant Royal, Paris Alexandre, que le tien trescher neveu Larchiduc Charles d’Austriche” (Vol. I, 6).

9780230620308_08_not.indd 205

2/18/2011 3:54:52 PM

206

Notes to Pages 32–36

98. “une autre Pallas” (7). 99. Her story is found in Vol. II, 399–412. 100. “La Royne Clotilde, envieuse et dolente de ce que son oncle demouroit si long temps paisible Roy de Bourgongne, pressa tant et sollicita son mary dentamer la guerre ouverte à son bel oncle” (404). 101. Vol. I, 34, 44 and 89. 102. Jane Chance discusses the availability of La livre de la cité des dames in England—in MS Harley 4431, which belonged to the Woodville family, as well as two French printed editions in 1497 and 1503, and an English translation printed in 1521. See “Gender subversion,” 167. Even more intriguingly, Susan Groag Bell traces the ownership of sets of tapestries illustrating the City of Ladies that belonged to Margaret of Austria (who received hers in 1513 when visiting with Henry in Tournai), Anne of Brittany (Mary’s predecessor as queen of France), and Henry VIII, who bequeathed a set to his son Edward and his daughter Elizabeth, The Lost Tapestries. In tracing the ownership of Henry’s tapestries, Bell speculates that he may have seen Margaret of Austria’s set and purchased a copy for Mary, since he was known to have purchased tapestries for her while in Tournai on that visit (141). Bell rejects the argument, thinking Mary’s set would have passed to her granddaughter Jane Grey, not been returned to Henry; however, since Mary gave Henry most of her household stuff as well as her dower money to appease him after the marriage to Brandon, it is possible he got the tapestries back in the process. At the very least, that several noblewomen in Mary’s circle possessed the work adds weight to arguments for her familiarity with the text. 103. For Boccaccio’s version, see Famous Women, ed. Brown, 128–31. For Christine’s version, see Richards’s translation, Book of the City of Ladies, 47–51. For a French version, see Cheney Curnow’s “Livre de la cité des dames,” 694–701. 104. La belle dame sans mercy is indisputably by Chartier; in the early modern period, people attributed L’hopital d’amours to Chartier, although now Achilles Caulier is thought to be the better choice. See McRae, Alain Chartier, 19. Citations of these works are taken from this edition. 105. The full quote is “Courtoisie . . . mais depart de sa bonne chiere / Ou il lui plaist et bon lui semble, / Guerredon, contraint a l’enchere, / Et elle de vont point ensamble” which McRae translates as “Courtesy . . . prefers to bestow her smiling grace / where it pleases her the most. / Recompense, constraint, and promises of greater goods / do not go hand in hand with Courtesy” (68–9). 106. One of whom included de Pizan’s son Jean de Castel. 107. For a full account of the controversy, see McRae, 7–21. 108. Palsgrave, Lesclaircissement, fol. 80r; fol. 413r-v. In Saint-Gelais, Heroides, ln. 194, fol. 3v. 109. “La je tescri & jai pres de ma main / Ton espee qui me occira demain / De mes larmes le piteux glaive arrouse / Qui maintenant en mon giron repose / et tost sera en lieu de pleurs et larmes / Taint de mon sang par tes rigoreux termes.” Saint-Gelais, lns. 408–13, fol. 7r. 110. See Ford, Suffolk garland, 121–125. 111. Kellner, Caxton’s Blanchardyn, 1. Jones and Underwood argue that the choice of Blanchardyn and Eglantine was political, since the romance plot seems to mirror political events surrounding the betrothal of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (King’s Mother, 181–182).

9780230620308_08_not.indd 206

2/18/2011 3:54:52 PM

Notes to Pages 36–38

207

112. Medieval Maidens, 71. 113. See Philips, Medieval Maidens, 77–97; Meale, “ ‘Gode men, Wiues maydnes and alle men,’ 209; for Riddy, see “Middle English Romance,” 235–252. 114. “The societal role of chivalry,” 98–99. 115. Kipling, Triumph of Honour; Anglo, Spectacle, Pageantry, and Early Tudor Policy; Doran, England and Europe in the Sixteenth Century; Richardson, “Eternal Peace, Occasional War”; and most recently, Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy. 116. See Bodl. MS Ashmolean 1116, fol. 109r-v. 117. Jones, Oxford Book of Sixteenth-Century Verse, 47, lines 8, 11. 118. Hall’s Chronicle, 513. 119. See Richard Gibson’s account books of the revels, in L&P, vol. II.ii, especially pages 1493, 1497–1500. 120. Chronicle, 511–512. 121. Jones and Underwood note that Mary watched Henry and Catherine’s procession into the city on June 23 with her grandmother in a house rented in Cheapside (King’s Mother, 236). Moreover, warrants note “stuff provided by the Great Wardrobe against the Coronation of the King and Queen, and for their use and that of the Princess of Castile (Mary) about that time.” See L&P, I.i, 82. 122. L&P, II.ii, “The King’s Book of Payments,” pages 1441–1480, passim. 123. Chronicle, 514. Hall indicates no contemporary outcry against the use of blackface as would occur in Ben Jonson’s Masque of Blackness in 1605. See Dudley Carleton’s letter to John Chamberlain in which he calls it “a very lothsome sight” in Herford et al’s Ben Jonson, 449. My thanks to Meg Pearson for the reference. 124. Court Revels, 68–69. 125. Gunn, CB, 8–11. 126. L&P, II.ii, p. 1497. 127. Froissart was famous at the English court; manuscripts of his chronicles of English history dominate the library of Henry VII. Mary would have been familiar with Froissart partly through Palsgrave’s teaching. Stein notes that after Lemaire, Froissart is the author Palsgrave cites most frequently in his lists of vocabulary ( John Palsgrave, 191). It is also interesting to note that Sir John Bourchier, Lord Berners, who would translate Froissart’s Chronicles for Henry VIII, starting about 1520, was Mary’s chamberlain in France (Lee, Duke Huon, xli-xlvi). Berners also translated the romance Huon of Bordeaux and The Castell of Love; his translations weren’t begun until five years after the scandal of Mary’s marriage, but the link further underscores Mary’s connection to a literary circle familiar with Froissart and romance. It is also possible that a manuscript containing Froissart’s complete works of poetry that Froissart had presented to Richard II in 1395 might have accompanied Mary to France. See de Looze, La Prison Amoureuse. Although it is uncertain whether the manuscript did return to France with Mary, it seems a reasonable supposition, given that the manuscript was discovered in the French Bibliothèque Royale in 1544, only thirty years later (xxiv). 128. Early versions of Meliador were probably written in the 1360s; SchmolkeHasselmann argues “that the needs of the English crown were the intellectual driving force behind the ideology of the text” (The Evolution of Arthurian Romance, 276). By aligning Meliador with Cornwall and King Arthur, and his

9780230620308_08_not.indd 207

2/18/2011 3:54:52 PM

208

129. 130.

131.

132. 133.

134. 135. 136.

137.

138. 139.

140. 141.

142. 143.

Notes to Pages 38–41 rival Camel with Scotland, Froissart established a parallel with the Plantagenets versus the Bruces. All references are to Auguste Longnon’s edition of Meliador. “Je serai encore, je le di, / Rois d’Escoce” (lns. 2425–2426). “Et li recordés la vertu / Dou chevalier au soleil d’or, / Et dittes bien au roy encor, / Quant vous serés par devant li, / C’onques tel chevalier ne vi” (lns. 9280–9284). “nous li donnons le hyaume / Pour le pris, ossi le royaume / D’Escoce, et le vostre gent cors” (lns. 2962–2964). The connection between politics and marriage is made plain throughout the work, to the point that the knights who came in second, third, etc., each marry heiresses of corresponding rank. Dembowski notes that Froissart thus underlines the importance of hierarchy. ( Jean Froissart, 71–72). Dembowski, Jean Froissart, 113. As Dembowski notes, “This letter is only a ‘white lie.’ Any knight can hold Hermondine ‘pour sa dame’ ”( Jean Froissart, 116, quoting ln. 2181). When Hermondine suggests that Camel may fight for her, she is not promising to reciprocate with her love. According to the codes of courtly love, many lovers could serve one lady. “la lettre bien li plaisoit, \ Mais dou rondelet c’estoit trop” (lns. 2161–2162). For example, Florée offers to help Meliador and Hermondine exchange letters (lns. 17731–17739). Kelly notes that the sixteenth century saw the proliferation of thirteenthand fourteenth-century prose versions of the stories of Lancelot, Tristan, and other heroes (Medieval French Romance), 76–77. W. R. J. Barron surveys romances that circulated in both print and manuscript in England from 1216 to 1534 (English Medieval Romance), 238–242. Printed in 1485 by Caxton, Malory’s popular retelling of Arthurian romance Le Morte D’Arthur provides an excellent case study of fictional letters. In addition, several other Arthurian romances were circulating in print and in manuscript during this period of Mary’s life, including King Arthur’s Death, Legend of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot du Lake, and numerous others. A copy of the Romance of the Holy Grail had belonged to Elizabeth of York and her mother Elizabeth Woodville ( Janet Backhouse, “Illuminated Manuscripts,” 180–1). See also Carley’s Libraries of King Henry VIII. All references are to Spisak’s edition, Caxton’s Malory. Malory, Morte d’Arthur, 529–530. The letter reads: “Moost noble knyghte Sir Lancelot, now hath dethe made us two at debate for your love; I was your lover that men called the Fayre Mayden of Astolat. Therfor unto alle ladyes I make my mone, yet praye for my soule and bery me atte leest, and offre ye my Masse-peny; this is my last request. And a clene mayden I dyed, I take God to wytnes. Pray for my soule, Sir Lancelot, as thou art pierles” (530). “Locating a Public Forum,”19–36. This device follows the Ovidian tradition of the Heroides; it is a device Malory will repeat with the letter Perceval leaves on his sister’s body to explain her role in the Grail quest. Lancelot finds it and spends a month in prayer inspired by her example (Morte d’Arthur), 493–494. Bennett, English Books and Readers, 161. Dickson, Valentine and Orson, 302. References to the poem are taken from The comforte of lovers, printed by Wynkyn de Worde, probably in 1515.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 208

2/18/2011 3:54:53 PM

Notes to Pages 41–45

209

144. Politics and Literature, 56–72. 145. For the poem’s references, see Hawes, lines 168, 189, 193, 861, fols. A4r-v and C4v. For Fox’s references to them, see pages 59, 62, 65. 146. Lines 1–9, fol. A4v. Hawes’s printer employs / as a punctuation mark; to avoid confusion with the contemporary use of / as an indication of line breaks in poetry, I have substituted | in its place. 147. Lines 21–5, fol. A4v. 148. Line 32, fol. A2r. 149. Line 79, fol. A2v. 150. Page 64. Although Lerer admits his lack of interest in Fox’s biographical allegory, he agrees that Hawe’s narrator “present[s] himself as someone painfully excluded from the workings of the courtly patronage system” (Courtly Letters), 52. Building on Fox’s argument, Lerer contends that Hawes offers reading and writing texts as a possible comfort for the poet’s anxiety about social mobility. 151. Line 645, fol. 101r. 152. Lines 162–73, fols. A4r-v. All subsequent references in this paragraph taken from fols. A4r –A5r. 153. Lines 155–61, 211–17, fols. A4r –A5r. 154. Lines 219–24, fol, A5r. For information on Tudor symbolism, see Anglo, “Tudor Dynastic Symbols,” 193–209. 155. See Fox, 69–70, for a full outline of the tests. 156. Lines 407–10, fol. B2v. 157. Lines 722–49, fols. C2r-v. 158. Page 67. Fox suggests that for Hawes, the purpose of the poem is primarily to provide comfort, to express his feelings for Mary, and to justify his worthiness without expectation of receiving Mary’s love. Only at the very end of his article does he entertain the idea of specific political patronage as Hawes’s goal. 159. Lines 855–861, fol. C4v. 160. Lines 762–763, fol. C3r. 161. Lines 841–842, fol. C4v. 162. Lines 872–889, fol. C5r. 163. Lines 911–917, fol. C5v. 164. Lines 932–938, fol. C6r. 165. L&P, I.i, 1050. 166. BL Cott. Vitellius C.XI, fol. 145. The full list has been edited in Turpyn’s Chronicle of Calais, 54–66. 167. For example, L&P, I.i and I.ii, 202, 224, 237, 471, 629, 639, 796, 976, 1027, 1086, 1125, 2465, 2487, and 2692. 168. L&P, II.ii, pgs. 1444, 1446, 1458–60, 1463. 169. For example L&P, I.ii, 377, February 28, 1510, for a chevalier d’honneur to accompany Mary and 2370, October 15, 1513, for a choice of femme de chambre and controller. 170. BL Cott. Galba B.III, fol. 75r. For the annuity, see Rymer’s Foedera, vol. 5, 49. In L&P, II.ii, in the King’s Book of Payments, there is a note that 20l. was allocated for “one sent from the Duchess of Savoy to my Lady Princess of Castile to be in her service,” p. 1460. 171. L&P, I.i, 474; CSPS, Addenda, 8. 172. BL Cott. Galba B.III, fol. 190r. For Ferdinand’s approval, see L&P, I.ii, 2131. 173. BL Cott. Galba B.III, fol. 109r. L&P dates the letter December 18, 1513, (I.i, 2515) but Gairdner makes a compelling argument to place it in 1508, given

9780230620308_08_not.indd 209

2/18/2011 3:54:53 PM

210

Notes to Pages 45–50

174.

175.

176. 177. 178. 179. 180.

181.

that the letter mentions the presence of de Berghes and Charles’s other ambassadors in England at the time, something that did not happen in 1513 (“Spousells”), xi–xii. L&P, I.i, 130. Maximilian writes to Margaret on July 30, 1509 acknowledging Mary’s gesture and letting Margaret choose whether Charles should reciprocate at that time. Morgan, Rulers of England Box 02, Henry VIII, no. 33a. The letter could be dated anytime between 1509 and 1514, but it makes sense to narrow the dates; Mary tended to travel with Henry and in 1509 in April, the king was at Richmond; in April from 1510–4, he was at Greenwich, and references to payments for Mary’s Easter offering suggest she was with him (L&P, II.ii, pgs. 1441, 1445, 1450, 1455, 1460, and 1464). If it were as late as 1514, one might expect some reference to her impending journey in July to consummate the marriage. “mon trescher et tresayme Seignieur,” “bonne vie et longue et eureuse prosperite enn toutes voz affaires.” “leplus humblement que faire le puis a vostre bonne grace me recommende.” “mes humbles recommendacions.” L&P, I.ii, 2858 and CSPS, II, 166 and 169. “Car de long temps Jay eue desir a scavoir comment les atours et habillemens que se usent pardela me sieroynt et maintenent que Je les ay essaiez Je me contente moult fort deulx ./ Esperant quil me sera chose assez facille de laisser ceste acoustumee mode de vestir quant Je me trouveray avecques vous.” L&P, I.i, 1557.

2 Becoming the Queen 1. Baskervill, 15, my translation. Baskervill transcribed the magnificently illuminated presentation copy given to Mary: BL Cott. Vespasian B.II. Cynthia Brown has produced a more recent edition, Les entrées royales à Paris de Marie d’Angleterre et Claude de France. 2. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 51. 3. See Green, Lives, 24; CSPS, I, 558; L&P, I.ii, 2779. 4. Baumgartner, Louis XII, 230. 5. See for example William Knight’s two letters to Wolsey (L&P, I.ii, 2779, April 3, 1514 and 2868, May 2, 1514) and Richard Wingfield, Thomas Spinelly, and Knight’s report to Henry, L&P, I.ii, 2797, April 9, 1514. 6. See L&P, I.ii, 2512, December 17, 1513, to Henry; 2660, to Wolsey, February 19, 1514; and 2917, May, 1514, to Henry. See also the letter from the Bishop of Winchester to Fox and Wolsey, L&P, I.ii, 2928, May 20, 1514. 7. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 59. 8. The full text of Henry’s letter is printed in Godefroy, Lettres du roy Louis XII, et du cardinal George d’Amboise, vol. IV (Brussels, 1712), 312–317. See L&P, I.ii, 2877, for English abstract and 2894, May 10, 1514 for a letter giving Margaret’s response. 9. See L&P, I.ii, 2934 and 3000. 10. Charles Giry-Deloison notes even in times of peace, tensions typically ran high between the two countries; he cites the example of Robert de Gaguin, a French ambassador in England, who wrote in 1498 that “Englishmen would teach archery to their sons by giving them a target of the face of a

9780230620308_08_not.indd 210

2/18/2011 3:54:53 PM

Notes to Pages 51–54

211

Frenchman and saying: ‘Go, my boy, learn to shoot and kill a Frenchman.” See “England and France at Peace,” 43. In addition to Mary’s awareness of that tension and knowledge of current events garnered from life at court, Palsgrave’s teaching would have assured her historical knowledge, since he frequently quoted texts such as Chartier’s Lai de paix or Quadrilogue. See Lesclaircissement, fol.III.123r. 11. “vel dolo seducta aut Circumventa, Terroribusve sive minis impulsa, sed Sponte & ex Animo suo” (63). Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, my translation. The text of her speech was distributed in Latin, but the translator noted that Mary delivered it in English. Catalogued in L&P, I.ii, 3101. See also Green, Lives, 26–7 and Richardson, WQ , 78 for translations of additional lines. 12. “in bonam partem accipiat, nec sibi propterea in aliquo succensiat, cum semper parata fit & erit ipsius Regiae Celtitudinis Beneplacito in omnibus obtemperare.” 13. L&P, I.ii, 3098 and 3099. 14. L&P, I.ii, 2956 and 2957. For Henry’s letter to Wolsey about the negotiations, see Rymer’s Foedera, vol. 6.i, 61. For Henry to Margaret, see L&P, I.ii, 2972. 15. For sample rumors of the marriage, see L&P, I.ii, 2994, Margaret of Austria to Maximilian, June 12; 3035, Richard Wingfield to Wolsey, June 27; 3037, Caracciolo to the Duke of Milan, June 28. 16. On August 12, Henry informed Pope Leo that “the said most illustrious lady our sister, having held consultation with discreet persons, solemnly determined, in presence of a public notary and witnesses, to rescind and hold null and void whatever had been transacted by our father, in her name.” Qtd. in Mumby, Youth of Henry VIII, 271. 17. Sibling Relations, 12. 18. Richardson notes that because of the marriage, Henry could accept the money without seeming to be one of Louis’s “pensioners,” the way his predecessors had been perceived for taking payments in lieu of pursuing their claim to the French crown (Renaissance Monarchy, 56). 19. Baumgartner, Louis XII, 238–9; Green, Lives, 28, Richardson, WQ , 78–79, and Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 64–70. 20. Baumgartner, Louis XII, 229. 21. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 61. 22. Annales of England, 15. 23. “Laisserez vous l’aigle ainsi bas voller, / Jusques à fouller le champ des fleurs de lys? / Souffrerez vous ce pays affoller? / . . . Homme sans cueur perd credit & renom.” See “Invectif sur l’erreur, pusillanime, & lascheté des gensd’armes de France,” in Les poesies de Guillaume Crétin, 170, lns. 81–88. The word “voler” can mean both “to fly” and “to plunder” or “steal”; I have highlighted the latter in my translation. See Giry-Deloison, “France and England,” 53, for more. 24. See Baumgartner, Louis XII, 238 for examples. 25. See L&P, I.ii, 3009. In addition to Mary, Louis was apparently contemplating either her sister, the newly-widowed Margaret of Scotland, or Margaret of Austria, or Eleanor of Castile. 26. NA SP 1/10/79–80, fol.79r. 27. Hughes, Tudor Royal Proclamations, 123. 28. CSPV, II, 482. Badoer’s original reads, “La Raina non se ne incura del re di Franza sia vechio di anni . . . .et habi gote, et lei zovene di anni . . . e bella e donzella, tanto è stà contenta di esser raina di Franza” Diarii, 12.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 211

2/18/2011 3:54:53 PM

212

Notes to Pages 54–56

29. Carlisle, Life of Mary, in BL Addit. 33748, fol. 9r. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 69. 30. NA SP 1/10/79–80, fol.79r. 31. Barbara Harris observes that some women—such as Margery Paston and Margaret Douglas—married secretly but notes Mary is “probably the best known early-sixteenth-century woman who openly challenged the arranged marriage” (“Power, Profit, and Passion”), 62–63. 32. Wells and Taylor, Shakespeare, S.d, I.i.1–2. 33. Godefroy, Lettres du roy Louis XII, vol. IV, 326–327. See L&P, I.ii, 2994, for English abstract. 34. L&P, I.ii, 3009. 35. CSPM, 692. June 28, 1514. 36. L&P, I.ii, 3018 and 3041, June 19 and 30. 37. L&P, I.ii, 3043. 38. On August 27 the Venetians held a high mass, rang bells and chanted Te deums throughout the city; the next day they lit fireworks and the Doge sent congratulations to Henry and thanks for England’s friendship. CSPV, II, 472–473, 476–7; L&P, I.ii, 3206. For the news about Castile, see L&P, 3337, October 5, 1514. 39. L&P, I.ii, 3173 and 3178; August 18 and 20. CSPV, II, 479, September 1. 40. For the letter expressing Leo’s approval, see L&P, I.ii, 3254. He also rewarded Archbishop Thomas Wolsey, one of the prime architects of the match, with a cardinalship. On May 21, 1514, Polydore Vergil reported to Wolsey that if he had influence on Henry, Leo would make him a cardinal. Later in the letter, Vergil explains that the Pope desires peace (2932). On August 12, the same day Henry informed Leo of the marriage, the king wrote another letter asking for the cardinalship for Wolsey (3140). Leo would deliver on his promise in 1515. 41. L&P, I.ii, 3240. September 4. 42. WQ , 79. Perry argues that the English still desired revenge for French attacks (Sisters, 87). 43. L&P, I.ii, 3252. September 8. 44. Anglica Historia, 224–225. 45. Giry-Deloison notes that when some of the English lords who went to France as part of Mary’s entourage dressed more richly than their hosts, the French condemned them as uncouth and the next day the English dressed more plainly (“ ‘Une haquenée”), 149. 46. “Je suis plus joyeux et plus aise que je fus passé vingt ans; car je suis seur, ou on m’a bien fort menti, qu’il est impossible que le Roy et la Royne puissent avoir enfans, qui est faict à mon advantage” (“Mémoires de M. de Fleuranges”), 44. 47. L&P, I.ii, 3250, September 7, 1514. Seeking to protect Spain from the AngloFrench alliance, Ferdinand ordered his ambassador to negotiate the marriage of the Infante Ferdinand with Louis’s daughter Renée. L&P, I.ii, 3145, August 12, 1514. 48. Hall’s Chronicle, 569. Sir Edward Ponynges told Wolsey that he feared the English would be unable to hold Tournai given the people’s irate reactions to news of the marriage. L&P, I.ii, 3247, September 7, 1514. For her part, Margaret first refused to believe the rumors, then tried to dissuade Henry by reminding him how the French had treated her badly, a suggestion Henry dismissed out of hand. L&P, I.ii, 3174 and 3257, August 19 and September 11, 1514. 49. Spinelly and Wingfield quoted Maximilian’s speech to Henry; see L&P, I.ii, 3264. September 13, 1514.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 212

2/18/2011 3:54:54 PM

Notes to Pages 56–59

213

50. CSPV, II, 503. October 30, 1514; L&P, I.ii, 3282, September 16, 1514. 51. CSPV, II, 505. October 30, 1514. 52. “Je vous certifie que c’est l’une des belle filles que l’on sçauroit voir, & ne me semble point en avoir oncques veu une si belle, elle a tres bonne grace & le plus beau maintien soit en devises, en danses ou autrement que possible est d’avoir, & elle n’est riens melancholique ains tout recreative.” June 30, 1514. Godefroy, Lettres du roy Louis XII, 338. See L&P, I.ii, 3041, for English abstract. 53. “Le personnaige est si bien qualiffié que il n’y a que redire ne en bonté ne en beauté ne en eaige & la pareille n’est point en Chrestienté. Monsieur est & sera heritier de plusieurs grands Royaulmes & Seigneuries pour parvenir ausquelles, cette alliance luy duit fort & n’en scauroit faire nulle dont il puist estre seur d’estre si bien ny si grandement aydé a secouru” (340). 54. Richardson, WQ , 106–107; Green, Lives, 26. 55. “il me semble qu’elle ayme Monsieur merveilleusement elle a ung tableau où il est tres mal contrefait, il n’est jour de monde qu’elle ne le veulle voir plus de dix fois comme l’on m’a affermé, & si me semble que qui luy veult faire plesir que l’on luy parlé de Monsieur” (338–339). 56. L&P, I.ii, 3129, August 7; 3136, August 10; 3139, August 12, and 3146, August 13, 1514. 57. Elizabethan Silent Language (Lincoln: UNebraska Press, 2000), 3. Although Hazard here discusses Elizabeth, her points also apply to the spectacles of Elizabeth’s father and aunt. 58. CSPV, II, 505. Letter from Nicolò di Favri to Francesco Gradenigo, October 30, 1514. 59. Le Treshault, Tresexcellent, Teschristien [sic] Roy de France Loys douziesme de ce Nom . . . par Moy Loys d’Orleans, Duc de Longueville . . . prent Dame Marie a sa femme & Espouze, & mon dit Tresredoubte Souverain Seigneur vous Promet, & moy pour Luy vous Promestz, que d’oresenavant, & durant sa naturelle Vie, il Vous aura, tiendra, & reputera pour sa Femme & Espouze; Et sur ce, en vertu et povoir dessusdit, il et moy pour Luy vous en baille sa Foy.” Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 72. 60. “Je Marie . . . prens le dit Seigneur Roy a mon Marye & Espoux, & en Luy Je consens comme a mon Marye & Espoux: & a Luy & a Vous pour Luy Je Promettz que d’oresenavant, durant ma naturelle Vie, Je l’auray, tiendray, & reputeray pour mon Marye & Espoux; Et sur ce baille a Luy et a Vous pour Luy ma Foy.” Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 72. 61. CSPV, II, 505. 62. CSPV, II, 505. “il Re con una vesta a scachi d’oro e de raxo beretin, con certi fogiami ingalizadi a suo modo, con uno colar che val assa’ danari, e il duca de Longavilla andava quasi a lai Sua Majestà con una vesta a scachi d’oro e di raxo paonazo, con una bellissima colaina. Pasado il Re, vene la Rezina moglie di questo Serenissimo Re, la qual è graveda, vestida de raxo beretin con colaine et zoje, in cao una scufia d’oro senza rechie al modo nostro, e a lai d’essa era la sorella del Re, che è la sposa garzona, di anni 16, con una vestura di raxo beretin, et la vesta di razo paonazo e d’oro fata a scachi, con una simel scufia d’oro, con colaine et zoje.” Diarii, XIX, 190. Favri’s estimate of Mary’s age as sixteen is short by two years. 63. BL Harl. 3462, fol. 142r. There is an English translation in Mumby’s Youth of Henry VIII, 269. 64. CSPV, II, 505.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 213

2/18/2011 3:54:54 PM

214

Notes to Pages 59–61

65. L&P, I.ii, 3180, August 22. 66. Frantzen notes that the Tudors esteemed the poem “not only as an example of English love poetry but as an example of highly ornate art valued far above the ‘common speech’ of The Canterbury Tales” (Troilus and Criseyde), 22. Caxton printed an edition in 1483. Moreover, the story itself was popular at the Henrician court; in the Christmas season of 1516, William Cornish and the children of the Chapel Royal played “ye storry of troylous and pandor” to entertain the assembly. See Lerer, Courtly Letters, 34. Lerer highlights the story’s applicability, particularly with regard to Pandarus, to the court politics of Henry VIII. Mary was almost certainly present at this performance, since both she and Brandon were in London for the celebration of Wolsey’s receiving a cardinalship on November 15 (L&P, II.i, 1153). Brandon was still in London on December 22 when he witnessed Wolsey’s receipt of the Great Seal from the Archbishop of Canterbury (L&P, II.i, 1335). There is no further reference to either Mary or Brandon in the state papers until January 10, when Brandon wrote Wolsey from Norwich to affirm that he would return to London for additional business (L&P, II.i, 1397), yet it is reasonable to conclude the couple remained for the Christmas holidays. 67. II, 1027. All references are to Benson’s Riverside Chaucer. 68. Gordon, Story of Troilus, 53. 69. “car c’est la chose en ce monde que plus je desire” (Champollion-Figeac, Lettres de rois, reines), 545. See L&P, I.ii, 3244, September 5. Mary’s three letters to Louis also all mention his having written letters to her. Wolsey also noted in a letter dated September 14 that Louis had sent two more letters to Mary by different bearers; see L&P, I.ii, 3266. 70. “prandre la peine de le presenter a madite femme” (545). 71. For Longueville’s letters, see L&P, I.ii, 3155, August 16 and 3230, September 2, 1514. For Bohier’s letters, see 3202, August 28, and 3233, September 2. 72. Qtd. in Green, Lives. 34. 73. “Et pour ce que par mon cousin vous entendnez come toutes choses ont pris [word omitted] fin et conclusion, et le tres singulier desire que jay [words omitted] vous faire plus longue lettre.” Original, undated, August, 1514, BL Addit. MS 34208, fol. 27r. This manuscript is a modern copy of the French holograph original, held in the BNF. The original transcriber left a gap between the words “jay” and “vous;” working directly from the French original, Green supplies a translation of the missing phrase; see Letters, vol. I, 172–3. 74. “Dire & compter par ton plaisir escript / Disant par tout Jason le ma escript” (Lns. 31, 43–44, emph. mine). Saint-Gelais, Heroides. Later editions, such as the 1546 printing, read “plaisant.” 75. BL Addit. MS 34208, fol. 28r. 76. “vous asseure Monsieur . . . que la chose que plus je desire & souhaite pour le jourdhuy sest dentendre de voz bonnes nouvelles, sante et bonne prosperite.” 77. “vous suppliant monsieur me vouloir ce pendant pour ma tressinguliere consolacion souvent faire scavoir de voz nouvelles.” BL Cott. Vitellius C.XI, fol. 156r. 78. “les tresaffectueuses lettres quil vous a pleu naguaires mescripre qui mont este a tresgrant joye et confort vous asseurant monsieur quil nya riens que tant Je desire que de vous veoir.” BL Cott. Vitellius C.XI, fol. 156r.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 214

2/18/2011 3:54:54 PM

Notes to Pages 61–64

215

79. “tressinguliere consolacion . . . voz bons et agreables plaisirs pour vous y obeir et complaire.” 80. “qu’el n’y a Amytie ne Allience en la Christiente que tant ne plus Je tiengne chere.” Dated September, 1514. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 81. 81. “que ma dite Femme a pris d’avoir ouy de mes Bonnes Nouvelles, & que la chose, que pour le Jourduy plus Elle desire & souhaite, est de Me veoyr & estre en ma Compaignie, Je Vous pris . . . luy dire de par Moy, & Luy faire bien entendre, que mes Desirs & Souhaitz sont pareilz & semblables aux siens.” 82. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 139r. See also L&P, I.ii, 3155, August 16. Cavalcanty could evidently call on other powerful friends. On May 18, 1514, Pope Leo wrote Henry asking for the return of the cargo (L&P, I.ii, 2916). This may have had some effect, since in July of that year, Cavalcanty received a pardon and release from prison (3107). Leo would write Henry again on August 28, 1514 (3205). 83. “Je vous supply quil vous [plaise] ma dame luy estre aidant envers ledit Seigneur” (fol. 139r). Longueville’s letter was burned on all the edges and some words are wholly lost; Rymer, who saw the letter before the fire, supplies “plaise.” Foedera, vol. 6.i, 73. 84. L&P, I.ii, 3614. 85. “la royne ma souveraine dame.” BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 139v. 86. L&P, I.ii, 3294. September 23. Record of Henry’s instructions. 87. L&P, I.ii, 3326; Perry, Sisters, 91. See also Green, Lives, 35. 88. Herbert Norris quotes lengthy excerpts from accounts of Mary’s wardrobe in Tudor Costume and Fashion, 209–11. 89. This batch was assembled from October 1–8, 1514. L&P, I.ii, 3343. Perry speculates that many of these people would have been working to alter the arms of Castile to that of France (Sisters), 91–92. 90. Green, Lives, 35–6. 91. L&P, I.ii, 3272. For an overview of the figure of Hercules in English mythography, see Pearson’s “Herculean Efforts,” 26–35, and Ferguson’s Utter Antiquity, 14–15. Given that Hercules was poisoned by his wife Deianira, the subject matter may also hint at a little subversive humor. 92. Sanuto, Diarii, XIX, 202–205. The letter has no signature but was apparently meant for the French ambassador in Venice, Antonio Triulzi, the Bishop of Asti; it opens “Reverendissime in Cristo pater et Domine mi singularissime.” Translation from CSPV, II, 511. November 2, 1514. 93. Green, Lives, 35–36. 94. For motto and banners, see CA MS I.3, fol. 85r and Green, Lives, 36. For a description of the litter itself, see Norris, Tudor Costume, 375–377. 95. Ibid., 36. 96. Louis’s letter does not survive, but Wolsey’s letter to Lord Berners, who would be Mary’s chamberlain, outlining the contents of Louis’s letter and asking him to consult Henry, does. L&P, I.ii, 3266. September 14. 97. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 81. September, 1514. L&P, I.ii, 3323. 98. National Gallery 2615. For a discussion of the portrait, see Susan E. James, The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485–1603, 38–39. 99. “un diamante in zojelo grando e grosso un bon dedo e una perla in pero soto granda come un ovo di colombo” (167). Letter to Alvise and Francesco Pasqualigo, September 23, 1514, in Sanuto, Diarii, XIX. Translation taken from CSPV, II, 500.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 215

2/18/2011 3:54:55 PM

216

Notes to Pages 64–66

100. Ibid. Rawdon Brown, the editor of this volume, notes that “wagons” might be a better translation for “chareta” since carriages weren’t developed until later in the sixteenth century, but nonetheless he ultimately prefers “carriages.” (note, p. 209). 101. Leland’s Collectanea, vol. I.ii, 701–705. Note, Leland’s source reads “The Duchesse of Norffolk, and in her Compaigne, The Countesse of Oxenford her Doughter” (703). It was Norfolk’s sister Anne who was the Countess of Oxford in 1512, not his daughter. The other possible error is that it was the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, Agnes Howard, who attended, not Elizabeth. The exact number of people accompanying Mary varies slightly depending on the source; CA MS M6bis, fols. 47r-8r lists only men, but gives thirty-seven lords and knights, as well as twelve other men, including Garter King of Arms. Leland’s source lists thirty-five men, with a few alterations to the CA manuscript. 102. BL Cott. Vitellius C.XI, fol. 155r, a list of Mary’s attendants approved by Louis. Leland’s list expands that slightly. Collectanea, vol. I.ii, 703. 103. Hall, Chronicle, 570. See letter from Andrea Badoer, September 16, 1514, re Henry’s plans to sail. L&P, I.ii, 3282. 104. Hall, Chronicle, 570. J.F.D. Shrewsbury speculates that Catherine’s premature labor resulting in a stillborn son one month later may have been caused by her travel here with Mary (“Henry VIII,” 7). Regardless, Catherine’s willingness to travel so late in her pregnancy is evidence of her continuing close relationship with Mary. 105. NA SP 1/10/79–80, fol.79r. That this conversation took place by the waterside is confirmed by another letter to Henry. See BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 253r. 106. Thirteen ships were required for Mary’s transportation; L&P, I.ii, 3513 summarizes the bills required to outfit and provision them. 107. All but 100 of the 500 men aboard the ship lost their lives. Turpyn, Chronicle of Calais, 16. See also Hall, Chronicle, 570, and John Stow, Annales of England (London, 1605), 832. Henry had only recently purchased the Great Elizabeth, which was previously known as the Lubeck. Christopher Coo, the captain of the Lezard, would be paid for transporting survivors home. L&P, I.ii, 3513, no. 2. 108. Anglica Historia, 225. 109. “E al tuor cambiato da tutti, a tutti si offeri molto con alcune parole in franzese che ne feze incantar tutti” (167). Letter to Alvise and Francesco Pasqualigo, September 23, 1514, in Sanuto, Diarii, XIX. Translation taken from CSPV, II, 500. My thanks to Ann Cerminaro-Costanzi for confirming the translation. 110. WQ , 86; Sisters, 92. 111. Giry-Deloison quotes Theodore Godefroy’s 1649 history Le Céremonial François, which notes that as Mary and Louis traveled through the towns of Picardy, they were greeted with official entries (“ ‘Un haquenée”), 143. 112. Selling the Tudor Monarchy, 63–64. 113. P. 570. Richardson, WQ , 90, and Perry, Sisters, 95, both name the Cardinal as Georges d’Amboise, but he died in 1510. It is more likely to have been René de Prie, who was the only cardinal recorded present at the entry to Montreuil and who celebrated the marriage in Abbeville. 114. “Réception Solennelle,” 71–75. Giry-Deloison observes that since the manuscript ends when the monks parted from Mary, the account is more a

9780230620308_08_not.indd 216

2/18/2011 3:54:55 PM

Notes to Pages 66–69

115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

120. 121. 122. 123. 124.

125. 126. 127.

128. 129.

130. 131.

217

testament to their efforts welcoming Mary, not an official record of her entry (“ ‘Un haquenée”), 138–139. “la belle et triumphant pucelle / Plaine d’honneur, de biauté et de sens,” (lns. 1–4, p.74). Lns. 5–13. “icy veons rozes et fleurs de lys / Tout d’un accord à sa noble venue” (lns. 18–19). “ ‘Un haquenée,” 155. Unlike the Bourgogne account, however, the Montreuil entry was recorded in a manuscript designed for circulation and describes Mary’s complete stay in the town. The Montreuil entry was edited by Wormald (“The Solemn Entry of Mary Tudor”) who argues that the prayer at the end of the manuscript indicates the town’s intent to circulate the text and notes that they may well have been competing with Abbeville (who circulated the story of its welcome in print and manuscript) for civic pride (473). “la paix dont elle estoit cause” (476). “la guerre qui est ung monstre merveilleux et dommaigeable mise en essil par la noble dame et le liz uny avecques la Roze” (477). “C’este couronne triumphante / Je t’offre princesse puissante . . . pour la plus excellente et triumphante Royne de toutes les autres,” 477. “representoit le mariage du Roy a la Royne Marie par lequel le poure peuple estoit delivré de la subgection de la guerre mere de tous maulx” (477). “sur toutes fleurs La Rose est belle / Sur toutes fleurs elle est d’eslite” (474, lns. 9–10). Wormald notes that the conceit of France as a garden of lilies was common (473). “la Royne receut aimablement fort comptente” (478). “Chacun prenoit liesse de veoir ladite dame qui a toutes manieres de gens estoit agreable” (479). There are several different accounts of their first meeting. See Hall, Chronicle, 570; Hippolyte Cocheris, Entrées de Marie D’Angleterre, as well as four different letters, all in Sanuto, Diarii, XIX, 196–207. See also CSPV, II, 507–11: 507, a letter from Marco Dandolo, the Venetian ambassador in France to the State, dated October 15 and 17; 508, a letter to the Bishop of Asti in Venice, October 10; 509, a summary of a letter without address, October 8 and 9; and 511, another letter to the Bishop of Asti, October 14. CSPV, 508 and 511. CSPV, 511. Other accounts state that Mary wore cloth of gold brocade on decorated with precious stones (509 and Cocheris, Entrées, 14). Either there was an error or, since another letter (508) reports there was a downpour that “drenched all them all, especially the ladies” right after the meeting, it’s possible that Mary changed clothing. Cocheris, Entrées, 15. CSPV, 508 reports that Mary kissed her hand to Louis first, which he did not understand, and he kissed her directly. See Sanuto, Diarii, “ed accostossi et la baciò; la quale, avanti la basasse, se basò a man sua propria, non intesi cerimonia, et le disse alcune parole” (198). Item 511 reports that he went “boldly” (“arditemente”) up to Mary as if they knew each other well, and “having first kissed his own hand to her, he then threw his arm round her neck, and kissed her as kindly . . .” See Sanuto, Diarii (“fra quali etiam che fusseno strectissimi, intrò molto arditemente, et si accostò a lei basandosi prima la mano propria,

9780230620308_08_not.indd 217

2/18/2011 3:54:55 PM

218

132. 133. 134.

135.

136. 137.

138.

139.

140. 141.

142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148.

149. 150. 151. 152.

Notes to Pages 69–71 poi cum butarli un brazo al collo et basarle cussi gratiosamente come s’el fusse stato de 25 anni” (203). Cocheris, Entrées, 15. CSPV, 509 and 511. Fleuranges, Mémoires, 43. He also inaccurately reports the presence of Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk (who didn’t arrive until later) but nonetheless there can be no doubt, Mary’s entourage made an impressive display. “Ne prenda admiratione vostra reverendissima signoria, se ogni cosa quasi se scrive in superlativo grado, che ancora è più che non se scrive, et a gran gloria di questa Regina” (205). Sanuto, Diarii, XIX. CSPV, 511. Green, Lives, 41. “Pulchra Maria vales lilia colligere” (15–6). François-César Louandre, Histoire d’Abbeville et du comté de Ponthieu jusqu’en 1789. Vol. II, 3rd ed. (Abbeville: Auguste Alexandre, 1844). The travel writer Lady Georgiana Chatterton noted that the Fosse-auxBallades was a place in the woods, a sort of primitive amphitheatre, where poets, musicians, singers, and actors from Abbeville would go to listen to one another’s work, to enact contests, etc. See The Pyrenees: with excursions into Spain Vol. 1 (London: Saunders and Otley, 1843), 13. Louandre, Histoire d’Abbeville, 16. Giry-Deloison notes that the ship is a significant theme, especially since it recurs in the pageantry of Boulogne, Abbeville, and Paris; he argues that “the boat, which was one of the emblems of the capital of her new kingdom, represented the only means of transport (and only physical link) between France and England and therefore the crossing of the divide between the two countries.” “Un haquenée,” 152–3. He also speculates that the gift of a silver boat to Mary in Paris may have been the same present she gave in turn to some heralds and musicians, and if so, “the going back and forth of the ship symbolised the renewed amity between France and England” (153). CSPV, 511. Later that evening, the dancing and music continued at banquets in Mary’s honor. Tragically, a fire broke out in the town and four houses burned; the chronicler notes that the fire got worse because they weren’t allowed to ring alarm bells that would have summoned help, lest the noise disturb the king. CSPV, 511. CSPV, 510. October 9. “et de gran longeza che mai fu vista tanta” (206). Sanuto, Diarii, XIX. CSPV, 511. CSPV, 510. Louandre, Histoire d’Abbeville, 17. Cocheris, Entrées, 17. CSPV, 511. Cocheris, Entrées, 17. Elsewhere in Sanuto’s diaries, Princess Claude is referred to as “Madame; presumably the same is true here (202). See CSPV, 510. “el Re è comparso molto alegro et gajo, et tre volta questa note ha passato la riviera e più l’haveria fatto se havesse voluto” (199). Sanuto, Diarii, XIX. CSPV, 508. “disoit qu’il avoit faict merveilles” (44). Fleuranges, Mémoires. “lesquelz il faisoit tres bon ouyr” (17). Cocheris, Entrées. CSPV, 508. Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser., Vol. I, 242–243.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 218

2/18/2011 3:54:56 PM

Notes to Pages 71–74

219

153. Qtd. in Green, Lives, 52. L&P, I.ii, 3387, catalogues this letter as October 25, but Brandon explicitly states he arrived on Thursday, which was October 26. 154. Ibid, 52–3. Green italicizes the phrase “your grace knows why.” That phrase would seem to indicate a known attachment between Brandon and Mary before her marriage to Louis. 155. “et est une aussi belle dame que jamais dame nature créa; et l’ayme tant le Roy”(263). Garnier, Joseph. “Correspondance de la Mairie de Dijon,” Analecta divionensia: Documents Inédits pour servir a L’Histoire de France Vol. I (Dijon: J-E. Rabutot, 1868). 156. “La dicte dame est tres belle honneste & joyeuse & est pour prendre plaisir en tous esbatemens, elle ayme la chasse & tyre de larc a la facon dangleterre si bien que merveille . . . Je croy que ce sera une dame daudasse, car elle ne seffraye de rien, & cy commende sagement a ses gens se quelle veult avoir” (Cocheris, Entrées), 7. 157. Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd series, Vol. I, 235–236. 158. Warnicke notes that Mary requested Thomas Boleyn to send his daughter, “la pettite Boulain” to join her in France. Citing Anne’s hope that of speaking with Mary, Warnicke asserts that that Anne had really been sent to live in the French nursery with princess Renée, since she was too young to act as a maid of honor (Rise and Fall), 14–17. 159. BL Cott. Vitellius C.XI, fol. 155r. 160. L&P, I.ii, 3354. For a complete listing of what the Garter King at Arms, Thomas Wriothesley, received, see Jerdan, Rutland Papers, 25–7. The chronicler notes that knights had the same amount as the Garter, while barons double that, earls and bishops double that again, and the Duke of Norfolk, twice as much as an earl (27). 161. WQ , 107–108. For Loades, see “Mary.” 162. CSPS, I, 288. 163. CSPS, I, 292. De Puebla to Ferdinand and Isabella reporting his conversation with Henry. Isabella ignored him, since her next letter to de Puebla explained she added more names (293). March 23, 1501. 164. Rise and Fall, 18. 165. October 12, 1514. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 257r. 166. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 257r. 167. WQ , 109. 168. October 12, 1514. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 146v. 169. “Le 9 d’octobre 1514, furent les amoureuses nopces de Louis XII, roi de France, et de Marie d’Angleterre, et furent espousés a dix heures du matin; et le soir couchèrent ensemble” (“Journal de Louise de Savoye,” 89). 170. Fleuranges, Mémoires, 44. 171. Fleuranges, Mémoires, 44. “Et avoit tant faict ledict sieur, que madame Claude, sa femme, ne bougeoit de la chambre de la Royne, et lui avoit-on baille madame d’Aumont pour sa dame d’honneur, laquelle couchoit dans sa chambre.” Ironically, Brantôme’s gossip suggests that the man Francis and Louise needed to fear most was the dauphin himself and that he needed to be warned about the consequences of attempting to consummate his infatuation with Mary. Oeuvres Complètes, 640. Matarasso points out that such gossip was surely unfounded, given that Louise felt comfortable returning home to Romorantin, something highly unlikely if her son were truly in danger of disinheriting himself. (Queen’s Mate, 284).

9780230620308_08_not.indd 219

2/18/2011 3:54:56 PM

220

Notes to Pages 74–79

172. “pour le porter bientost et plus doucement en enfer ou en paradis” (Fleuranges, Mémoires), 45. 173. He speculates that the basoche may have been taking particular revenge on Louis who had forbidden them to criticize his second wife, Anne of Brittany (“ ‘Un haquenée,”), 134–135. 174. “Introduction,” 4. 175. The Man of Law’s Tale, in Benson, Riverside Chaucer, 745. 176. Two competing translations were published in England in 1509; one version, by Henry Watson, was published by Wynkyn de Worde. According to Jones and Underwood, Margaret’s involvement with de Worde’s version was fairly minimal—the work only published after her death—but they point out that his citation of her patronage provides further example of the power of her name, even posthumously (King’s Mother), 185–186. The work’s popularity would likely ensure Mary’s familiarity with the text; Wynkyn de Worde’s con nection to Margaret Beaufort strengthens that likelihood. I have cited Watson’s edition, fols. S1v-S2r. 177. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol.146v. October 12, 1514. 178. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 257r. October 12, 1514. 179. Kellner, Blanchardyn and Englantine, 158. 180. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 257r. 181. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 150r. October 20, 1514. 182. Green, Lives, 48. Green translates a lengthy excerpt from Wolsey’s letter. See also L&P, I.ii, 3381. 183. Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser., Vol. I, 244. 184. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 160r. November 18. 185. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 196v. This portion of the letter is written in Dorset’s hand; given his spelling, I have modernized the language. The original reads: “the quenys grace cantuniys stylele her goudeness & vysdome & incresyth in the same so that che lysyth no gronde & duly incresehyth in the kyngys her husbandes fawer & in the fa[vor] ofe hys pryfe consele.” 186. Green, Letters, vol. I, 178–179. 187. For the November annuity, see L&P, I.ii, 3499, and for the June annuity, see L&P, II.i, 569. 188. NA MS SP 1/9/158. November 13, 1514. 189. Dewick, Coronation Book of Charles V of France, 44. 190. “Ceremonies and Privileges of Office: Queenship in Late Medieval France,” 182. 191. “Taking a Second Look,”106. Sherman also notes the emphasis on the queen’s inability to inherit relates to the English claims to the French throne, claims that descended from the female line. 192. See pps. 45 and 48. 193. Sherman, 107. For the original Latin, see Coronation Book, 48. 194. “Journal de Louise de Savoye,” 89. 195. Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd series, Vol. I, 247–254. November 7, 1514. 196. “desirans de tout nostre coeur qu’elle y soit par vous recueillye, honorée et receue le plus honorablement et grandement que faire ce pourra” (34–35). Baskervill, Gringore’s pageants. 197. Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd series, Vol. I, 253–254. November 7, 1514. 198. Cocheris, Entrées, 21–25.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 220

2/18/2011 3:54:56 PM

Notes to Pages 79–86

221

199. Cocheris, Entrées, 25–26. Hall provides the details of pearls on the necklace, 571. 200. Hall, 571. Cocheris’s account specifies that Francis rode at her side, not behind, 25. 201. Cocheris, Entrées, 26. 202. Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser., Vol. I, 254. November 7, 1514. 203. Gringore’s pageants, 1–15. See also L&P, I.ii, 3417, for English translations of descriptions of the pageants. 204. “quilz estoyent en vie que ce feussent statuez” (11). 205. “Un haquenée,” 157. 206. “par toy vivons en plaisir et en joye”(2). 207. “Mais marie nostre royne et maistresse / A apporté au roy doulx et courtoys / Present de paix pour francoys et angloys” (6). 208. “Veni amica mea veni coronaberis” (6). Baskervill, Gringore’s pageants. Biblical citations are taken from the Douai-Rheims and Vulgate translations. The line mostly derives from verse 8, “Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana” but the phrase “my love” (“amica mea”) comes from the first verse. 209. Song of Solomon 7:2: “Venter tuus sicut aceruus tritici vallatus liliis.” Psalm 121:7: “Ffiat pax in virtute tua et habundancia in turribus tuis.” 210. “dicelle estoille de mer a mys bon accord entre les princes” (12). 211. “la paix entre dieu & les hommes / Par le moyen de la vierge marie” (15). 212. “en leur triumphe et magnificence” (6). 213. Cocheris, Entrées, 31–32. 214. “jamais homme vivant ne vit si sumptueux souper a entrée de royne” (33). Cocheris, Entrées. 215. Cocheris, Entrées, 33–34. 216. For the detail of the value of the plate, see Hall, 572. As Jean Starobinski notes, “whenever it was a matter of manifesting power, Renaissance courts punctuated profane fetes with the paroxysm of throwing out largesse” (Largesse, 38). 217. Bonnardot, “si en aucune chose elle povoit fere plaisir à la Ville envers le Roy, le feroit très voulentiers” (218). 218. CSPV, II, 518. November 13, 1514. Sanuto, Diarii, XIX, 295–296. 219. Richardson, WQ , 118. 220. Turpyn, Chronicle of Calais, 16. 221. Sanuto, Diarii, XIX, 295. Green, Lives, 62–63 and Richardson, WQ , 119, both of which quote the French manuscript, Brienne MS 271. 222. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 196r. November 22, 1514. Dorset to Wolsey. 223. Lives, 62–63. 224. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 196r. November 22, 1514. Dorset to Wolsey. 225. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 160v. November 18, 1514. For the letter to Henry, see L&P, vol. I.ii, item 3437, which quotes him directly. 226. CB, 34–35. 227. L&P, I.ii, 3477. Louis’s answer to Brandon’s propositions. November 26. 1514. 228. “la mere et Royne dez estuder . . . notre mere et souveraine dame” (fol. 227r). BL Harl. 1757. 229. BN MS Français 5104, fol. Ev. The image is available on Gallica at the permanent address: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7200014d.planchecontact.f25.langFR.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 221

2/18/2011 3:54:57 PM

222

Notes to Pages 86–91

230. I am very grateful to Professor Richardson for sharing a copy of his paper, “An Oration to Mary Tudor, Queen of France, 1514,” which he delivered at the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference in Minneapolis in October, 2007. 231. Green, Lives, 67–69. 232. Green, Lives, 69. 233. Bonnardot, Registres, 219. 234. Ibid., 219. 235. Qtd. in Timothy Hampton’s Fictions of Embassy: Literature and Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 2009), 54. 236. Green, Lives, 69. October 25. 237. BL Cott. Vespasian F.III, fol. 50r. 238. Jane Couchman explores the ways that Catherine de Bourbon similarly informs her brother of her husband’s devotion to her in order to maintain good relations. See “Resisting Henri IV: Catherine de Bourbon and her Brother” in Miller and Yavneh, Sibling Relations, 70. 239. Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser., Vol. I, 261. L&P, vol. I.ii, 3440. 240. NA SP 1/9/147. October 18, 1514. 241. NA SP 1/9/148. October 20, 1514. 242. Descars did return to France, although I can find no record stating precisely when, nor the amount of his ransom. 243. “sans nulle cause veritable” (fol. 148r). BL Cott. Caligula D.VI. 244. “Je vous prie de Rechief / et en faveur de moy en Recompense des services quil nous a faitz et a ce quil soit plus curieux de prier dieu pour vous & moy Luy faire quelque bun.” 245. “par aucune de noz especiaulx serviteurs d’angleterre.” 246. Green, Lives, 53. 247. “la Raina mi ha dimandà do cosse, l’una che tolemo impresa de Italia, l’altra che andemo a veder Veniexia” (196–7). Sanuto, Diarii, XIX. Translation from CSPV, II, 507. October 15 and 17, 1514. 248. CSPV, II, 547. December 8, 1514. Marco Dandolo to Venice. 249. L&P, I.ii, 3533. December 8, 1514. 250. “Contes & ducz de son noble sang proches / Trouvoient moien de faire leurs approches / Tout pres de moy, sachasne povoir mieulx / Complaire a luy que m’estre gracieux.” Letter 14. Bouchet. Epistres Morales, fol. xviii, lns. 14–18. 251. L&P, I.ii, 3518. December 4, 1514, regarding the amount; item 3544, December 14, and CSPV, II, 528, for more details. 252. “le contentement que j’ay de la Royne ma femme votre bon seur . . . laquelle s’est jusques ici conduycte et conduyt encores journellement envers moy de sorte que Je ne sauvoyr que grandement me louer and contenter d’elle, et de plus en plus l’aymer, honnorer, et tenir chiere” (261). Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser, Vol. I. Translation from Green, Lives, 71.

3 Marrying Where “my mynd is” 1. BL Cott. Vespasian F.XIII, fol. 281r. 2. Bridge summarizes the debate over the precise date (December 31 or January 1), ultimately making a convincing case for the latter. See A History of France, 267–283.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 222

2/18/2011 3:54:57 PM

Notes to Pages 91–96

223

3. BL Cott. Vespasian F.XIII, fol. 281r. For an overview of such romantic treatments of Mary, see the introduction to this book. 4. BL Cott. Vespasian F.XIII, fol. 281r. 5. Harris’s overview of Mary’s marriage surveys the few other early modern women who defied arranged marriages, noting that Mary is the most famous example (“Power, Profit, and Passion,” 62–63). 6. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 253v. Mary to Henry. Undated, late January/early February 1515. 7. Sanuto, Diarii, XIX, 363. CSPV, II, 553. 8. Sanuto, Diarii, XIX, 371. CSPV, II, 562. 9. Mémoires, 45. 10. Holinshed’s Chronicles, Vol III, 610. 11. Mémoires, 46. 12. Barrillon was a secretary for Francis’s chancellor, Anthoine Duprat. He writes, “Ledict seigneur la visitoyt souvent et faisoyt toutes gracieusetez qu’il est possible faire” ( Journal de Jean Barrillon, 13). 13. Sanuto, Diarii, XIX, 397. CSPV, II, 573 and 574. 14. Fleuranges, Mémoires, 46. 15. WQ , 130–1. 16. WQ , 131. Perry seems to agree, noting that Mary “lived night and day by candlelight, dressed in the terrible white garments which made her look more like an abbess than a queen” (Sisters, 109). 17. See L&P, II.i, 26, Robert Wingfield to Henry, for example. 18. Oeuvres Complètes, vol. IX, 641–2. Brantôme’s account is a kind of historical fiction; he crafts narratives to entertain and comment on society more than for accurate detail. For instance, LaGuardia provides an example of how Brantôme enacts and disrupts masculinist fantasies in his accounts. See Intertextual Masculinity, 181–226. 19. Fleuranges, Mémoires, 46. “Elle ne sçavoit aultre roy que lui; car elle ne pensoit point avoir fruict au ventre qui l’en peust empescher.” 20. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI. fol. 214v. Brandon, Nicholas West, and Richard Wingfield to Henry. February 10, 1515. 21. Brown, Four years, Vol. I, 39. Ferdinand of Aragon also thought that Francis would go, as he advised his ambassador in Rome to inform the pope. See CSPS, II, 207. 22. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, 65. For complete description in English, see CSPS, II, 183. 23. BL Cott. Galba B.III. fol. 257r. 24. NA SP 1/10/9. 25. BL Cott. Galba B.III. fol. 311r. January 17, 1515. 26. BL Cott. Galba B.III. fol. 318r. February 6, 1515. Spinelly’s warnings continued as late as March 5; see L&P, II.i, 221. 27. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI. fol. 214v. February 10, 1515. For Gattinare, see L&P, II.i, 114. February 4, 1515. 28. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 273r. Undated, late December, 1514. 29. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 165r, February 8, 1515. Given Brandon’s spelling, I have modernized the language. The original reads: “was moche boundon to god yt he had gyefwon her soo good and lofyng a brodar wyche sche has hall was fond bowth a fadar and a brodar and nhow spyssealle in her most nede

9780230620308_08_not.indd 223

2/18/2011 3:54:57 PM

224

Notes to Pages 96–98

wher fo sche prayd god yt sche myth lyef non lyngar dyn sche schold doo yt thyng yt schold by to your counttent tasseun and plyssur.” 30. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 213r, February 10, 1515. 31. This letter was partially burned in the 1731 fire that damaged the Cotton collection. I follow the speculations made by the editors of the L&P since they fit the size of the gaps; see. vol. II.i, 139. 32. Green notes that John Benedict Moncetto, the vicar-general of France and England, wrote Mary a consolatory epistle on Louis’s death in Latin, Quæstio consolatoria, in which he creates a dialogue between Mary and himself in which he comforts her in her despair at Louis’s premature death and her lament for the rapid change in her circumstances, which contrasts her glorious welcome with her present mourning (Lives), 74–75. See BL Addit. 15221, dated January 26, 1515. 33. See, for example, BL Cott. Galba B.III, fol. 314r. Spinelly to Henry. January 29, 1515. 34. Richardson, WQ , 143; L&P, II.i, p. xvii. 35. For instance, “Mary” writes, “I beg you to mix a little of your joy with my pain, that from you I see one word that will console me, and quickly to write me back how I can bring an end to my cries” (“Je te supply mesle ung peu de ta joye / A ma douleur, que de toy ung mot je oye / Consolatif, & promptement m’escriptz / Comment pourray donner treve à mes criz”) (197). Les poésies de Guillaume Crétin, 191–8. I have been unable to determine a date of composition, but Crétin died in 1525. 36. Epistres Morales, fols. xvii-xix (under “Epistres Familieres”). In Lives, Green describes the poem in greater detail, observing that it was commissioned by the Prince of Talmond, then notes how it celebrates Louis, commemorates Mary’s loving attention during his final months, and compares her to classical heroines such as Helen and Briseis (75–76). 37. “Ung cler ruysseau bruyant & rutillant, / Qui par mes yeulx sen alloit distillant / Sur mon visage, & d’illec descendoit / Sur le papier” (lns. 9–12). 38. “Encores tremble en escripuant ma main / Ceste douleur” (lns. 23–4). 39. Jane Couchman similarly explores the ways that Catherine de Bourbon’s professions of devotion to her brother stem from epistolary convention as much as they do from personal feelings. See “Resisting Henri IV: Catherine de Bourbon and her Brother” in Miller and Yavneh, Sibling Relations, 65. 40. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 255r. Undated, January/February 1515. 41. BL Cott. Caligula Caligula D.VI, fols. 253r-254r. Undated, January/February 1515. 42. These letters all belong to the spring of 1515. The closings belong to BL Cott. Caligula Caligula D.VI, fol. 256r, January; fol. 254v, January/February; fol. 250r, 15 February; and fol. 247r, March, respectively. 43. See The Lioness Roared, 25–62. 44. NA SP 1/10/79. Undated, April 30/May 1, 1515. 45. Lns. 288–94, fol. A6v. 46. Courtly Letters, 56. 47. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 257r. 48. My emphasis. The OED notes that “store” can mean “stock, reserves, often in immaterial sense, treasures, accumulated resources” and as a verb, “to restore what is ruined or weakened” (7c and 3). BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 255r. Undated, January, 1515.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 224

2/18/2011 3:54:58 PM

Notes to Pages 99–103

225

49. 50. 51. 52.

“Two thynges me conforte” he says: books and letters. Lns. 281–294, fol. A6v. Fol. 255r. Fol. 255r-v. Fol. 256r. The “mother” is another name for hysterica passio. Kaara Peterson identifies this disease as a “uterine malady . . . [that] describes primarily respiratory distress along with a sensation of strangling or pressure sometimes leading to a complete cessation of visible breathing. An attendant coldness of the body . . . is especially popular in Renaissance descriptions of symptomology” (“Re-Anatomizing Melancholy”), 154. The “Master John” Mary refers to is probably John Veyrier, sometimes also spelled Veyrery or Veyrye, the chief surgeon who began serving the Tudors under Henry VII. He was at Henry VIII’s coronation. L&P, vol. I.i, item 82. June 24, 1509. 53. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fols. 248v-249r. This letter is dated February 15, but Mary fabricates the timing of the events described, telling Henry that they took place the previous Tuesday night. However, Francis only returned to Paris on Thursday, February 15. He had left the city on January 18 to be crowned at Rheims on January 25, and his movements thereafter, visiting various shrines at Corbeny, Compiègne, and Senlis, are documented. See Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 46–47. The events described must have occurred before February 3, when Brandon writes Wolsey to explain that Mary told Francis about their relationship and therefore must truly have happened before January 18. 54. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 250v. 55. “Thicker than Water” 12, in Sibling Relations. 56. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 255v. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 253v. 57. “vel dolo seducta aut Circumventa, Terroribusve sive minis impulsa, sed Sponte & ex Animo suo” (63). Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.i, my translation. See chapter 2 for more. 58. BL Caligula D.VI, fol. 253r. This letter is undated but its content signals it was written in late January/early February 1515. 59. Fol. 253r. This letter was badly damaged by fire. In her edition, Green notes that Joseph Grove, who had access to Mary’s letters before they were damaged in the 1731 fire, quotes the passage fully in his History of the life and times of Cardinal Wolsey: “That your grace well knows what I did as to my first marriage was for your pleasure, and now I trust you will suffer me to do what I like” (Letters, 188, note a). I follow her in supplying the words “pleasure” and “marry as me liketh for to do” since based on the size of the gaps in the original and Grove’s quote, they seem a reasonable formulation of Mary’s original words. To preserve readability, I have not included all the brackets indicating where I silently added obvious missing letters. 60. “la qual vol tornar in Anglia,” in Sanuto, Diarii, 390. See also CSPV, II, 570. 61. After Brandon confessed the marriage, Wolsey replied that Henry could not believe that Brandon would break “yowr promysse made to hys grace in hys hand” at Eltham in front of Wolsey. NA SP 1/10/77. March 1515. 62. L&P, II.i, 94. 63. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 273r. 64. L&P, II.i, 160. Spinelly to Henry, February 13, 1515. 65. In Letters, Green provides a transcription of most of the letter (195–6). See also L&P, II.i, 106. Dated February 3, 1515. 66. L&P, II.i, 113. Undated, February, 1515.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 225

2/18/2011 3:54:58 PM

226

Notes to Pages 103–105

67. For Mary’s reference, see BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 246r; Brandon writes twice, once to Wolsey to warn him (Caligula D.VI, fol. 191r), the other to Henry when he apologizes for the marriage, Caligula D.VI, fol. 183r. His second letter gives one’s name as [Bonaventure] Langley; the second friar’s name was lost in the Cotton fire; all that can be read is “fryar fr” (fol. 184v). 68. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 191r. February 8, 1515. 69. L&P, II.i,160. Spinelly to Henry, February 13, 1515. 70. Mercurin de Gattinare to Margaret of Austria (Savoy). February 15, 1515. (Le Glay, Négotiations diplomatiques, Vol. II, 60–2). 71. NA SP 1/10/81. 72. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 163r. February, 1515. The day was lost in the fire, but using the precise phrasing that Mary employed suggests the same period. 73. I have modernized the language. The original reads: “hall me monne es gone and the qvyen and I bowth most meke fryndys and they wyell not by gotten wyet howth monne.” BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 168r. February 8, 1515. 74. The original reads “hall me nold fyellowes bowth [men] and women . . . .for daw me bodde by her me hart es wyet you.” Quoted in L&P, II.i, 146. 75. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 171r. To Wolsey, February 26, 1515. Actually, after Brandon wrote that promise, he squeezed into the margin a specific reference to jewels and plate, letting one wonder if he was nervous about giviing Henry a blank check of “wat he lest.” 76. See the February 15 letter, (Caligula D.VI); for Francis, fol. 248v, for Henry, fol. 249r. 77. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 260r. Undated, but the content points to early February. 78. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 262r. Undated, February/early March. 79. The original reads “arredde to wreth wyet thyr aun handys to the kyng me masstar aftar scheth frome as I thane thynke byst bout I doo pout et off tall I may have your advyes.” BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 190r. The date is lost, but Brandon refers to receiving Wolsey’s last letter on February 11. 80. Le Glay, Négotiations diplomatiques, 73. For Spinelly, see L&P, II.i, 180. 81. L&P, II.i, 203. This document is an undated draft corrected by Wolsey, yet it mentions receiving the ambassadors’ letter dated February 18. 82. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fols. 246v-247r. Undated, March, 1515. 83. Green quotes extensively from the original instructions; see Lives 102–4. See L&P, II.i, 468 for an abstract of the incomplete copy archived in England. She also supplies the Ash Wednesday date and notes that a French chronicle gives the date for the marriage as March 3; however she observes obliquely that Brandon’s confession on March 5 includes their (unfounded) fear that Mary was pregnant, which would seem to preclude a March 3 date (Lives), 90. One could speculate that if the French chronicler were correct, the two might have engaged in premarital sex, thus necessitating a hasty marriage, but that would seem unlikely, given how foolhardy such an action would be and how difficult to arrange, not ignoring how it would contradict Mary’s statement about Brandon never getting to enjoy her did he not agree to the marriage. It would, however, explain the decision to act so precipitously. By contrast, if Henry’s letter refusing to commit to the marriage sparked the decision, then that would argue for a date around February 24, provided they adhered to Mary’s four-day deadline. 84. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 185v. Undated, March 1515.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 226

2/18/2011 3:54:58 PM

Notes to Pages 105–112

227

85. The original reads “the quyne wold newar let me [be in] rest toll I had granttyed her to by married [and] soo to by playn wyet you I have mared her haretetylle and has lyen wyet her in soo moche I fyer me lyes yt sche by wyet chyeld.” BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 180r. 86. L&P, II.i, 223. 87. Cott. Vespasian F.III, fol. 41r. 88. L&P, II.i, 231. 89. NA SP 1/10/77. The document is a draft in Wolsey’s own hand. 90. For his, see Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol.263r. For hers, see Caligula D.VI, fols. 248v-249r. 91. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 251r. 92. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 188r. Undated, March 1515. 93. Selling the Tudor Monarchy, 67. 94. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 183r. Undated, March 1515. 95. The original reads “yt the kyng me brodar es counttent and the frynche kyng bowth the towne by hes lyettares and the todar by hes wardes yt I schold have [y]ou I wyll have the ty[m] aftar meen dyssour” (fol. 186r). Both the L&P (II.i, 80) and Green, Letters, 201, transcribe the first word here as “yf” but the second letter is clearly a “t” making the word “that,” which claims a much stronger position for Mary and makes more sense in context. 96. The original reads “you wyell not by countynt to follow [my m]end loke newar after thys d[ay to have] the proffar agayene (fol. 186r). 97. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 246r. Undated, March 1515. 98. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 253r. Undated, January/February 1515. 99. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fols. 246r-v. Undated, March 1515. 100. Lerer, Courtly Letters, 87–88. 101. Brown, Four years, Vol. I, 43–44. 102. CSPV, II, 593. March 26, 1515. 103. The full text of Isabella’s letter (in Latin) may be found in Ellis, Original Letters, Vol. I, 2nd ser, 263–265. An abstract of it may be found in L&P, II.i, 257. 104. Champollion-Figeac, Lettres de rois, Vol. II, 552–4. 105. For Henry’s letter, see NA SP 1/10/61. For Wolsey’s, see BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 259r. Both are dated February 18, 1515. 106. NA SP 1/10/106. 107. The artist is unknown; see Richardson, WQ , 140, and the image that follows on the insert. Although Richardson interprets this as a reference to her personal cleanliness, Perry more accurately identifies it as a reference to her dishonesty in the matter of the Mirror of Naples (Sisters), 112. 108. See Green, Lives, 95–8, for a more complete overview. 109. L&P, II.i, 304. 110. Richardson, WQ , 181–182. 111. Quoted in L&P, II.i, 204. 112. L&P, II.i, Appendix, 7. March 12, 1515. Green quotes the letter at length in Lives, 96–7, note 3. 113. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 251r. 114. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 258r. 115. Quoted in L&P, II.i, Appendix, 7. 116. BL Cott. Caligula D.XI, fol. 86r. 117. “homme de basse condition.” “Journal de Louise de Savoye,” 89. 118. L&P, II.i, 296.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 227

2/18/2011 3:54:58 PM

228

Notes to Pages 112–116

119. L&P, II.i, 318, 319, and 327. 120. The original reads “be paut to dyth ar by paut in prysson and soo to by disstrued alaf” BL Cott. Vespasian F.XIII, fol. 80r. 121. The original reads “me svffaryn lord and masstar and he yt has browth me op of nowth.” 122. The original reads “not fyryng the malles of thym for I know your grace of scheth natur yt et can not by in thyr pour es to caus you to dysstru me for ther malles bout wat pounesment so evar I have I schall thanke god and your grace of et and thynke yt I have wyell dessurvyed.” 123. NA SP 1/10/79–80. Undated, but since their stay in Calais was limited and Mary makes reference to being there, it must have been composed either April 30 or May 1, 1515. The watermark on the letter indicates that the paper was Wolsey’s own. Furthermore, the abstract in L&P, II.i, 227, indicates that the hand is Brian Tuke’s, with corrections in Wolsey’s hand. 124. Antenhofer notes that Barbara of Brandenburg, marchesa of Mantua, would share drafts with her husband and son (“Letters Across the Borders,” 107–9). See Daybell’s Women Letter-Writers in Tudor England in which he identifies several such instances, including an example of a secretary guiding his employer Lady Elizabeth Willoughby’s rhetoric (77–80). Other manuscript letters reveal extensive authorial revision; Sara Jayne Steen’s edition, Letters of Lady Arbella Stuart, provides myriad examples, especially on pps. 239–41, 244–6, and 251–5. Women were not alone in such practices. In Letterwriting in Renaissance England, Stewart and Wolfe include a transcription of a letter from Nathaniel Bacon to Lady Anne Heydon, drafted by a secretary, that reveals extensive corrections in Bacon’s hand (65–7). 125. Women Letter-Writers in Tudor England, 79. In an earlier essay, he also argues that although it is important to consider the influence of third parties, the final version of a letter represents the way “a woman wished to project herself,” no matter what changes might have been suggested by a secretary. See “Women’s Letters and Letter Writing in England, 1540–1603” in Shakespeare Studies 27 (1999): 170. 126. Rich Apparel: clothing and the law in Henry VIII’s England (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 169. 127. An indenture made regarding Mary and Brandon’s debts in December 1526 offers certain jewels left to Mary in partial payment of the debt and specifies that should Mary die without repaying the full amount, any remaining jewels and plate she possessed would be given to Henry. NA E30/1446. See also L&P, IV.ii, 2744. 128. Turpyn, Chronicle of Calais, 17. Gunn, CB, 37. Gunn notes that Richardson (and Green’s) reading of Barking is a mistake for Birling, where Henry was known to have been on May 6. Birling is also much closer to Dover. 129. Green, Lives, 102. 130. L&P, II.i, 436. See Gunn, CB, 38, and Green, Lives, 107–8, who corrects the L&P entry by noting that the payments are twice a year, totaling 2,000 pounds. 131. Green publishes lengthy excerpts from the original document in Lives, 102–4, including the full details of the public marriage and what Sidney was supposed to say. See also L&P, II.i, 468. 132. “Et me dit que devez soliciter le roi d’Angleterre qu’il la retire en ses mains . . . que s’elle se mari en France et le roi d’Angleterr mouroit sans hoirs,

9780230620308_08_not.indd 228

2/18/2011 3:54:59 PM

Notes to Pages 116–122

133. 134. 135.

136.

137. 138.

229

il metteroit son royaume en grant hasart” (qtd. in footnote 1, 73). Le Glay, Négotiations diplomatiques. L&P, I.ii, 3206. See Bodl. Wood MS F33, fols. 45r-46v; L&P, II.i, 1652, and Richardson, WQ , 199–200. Hall, Chronicle, 703. Actually, this was Mary’s second son, also named Henry. The first died by 1522; the second was born in 1522. See CA MS R.36, fol. 55v, which contains an epitaph for both boys. The birth date of the second may be extrapolated from Hall’s comment about his age at the time of his creation as Earl of Lincoln. Richardson, WQ , 269. His decision ultimately made possible the events leading up to the execution of Mary’s granddaughter Lady Jane Grey after the death of Edward VI. Quoted in L&P, II.i, 197. February 27, 1515. L&P, II.i, 199.

4

Always the French Queen: Identity Politics

1. Fisher, Here after ensueth two fruytfull sermons, fols. A2r-v. 2. Hatt notes that Fisher was a member of Catherine’s entourage and that the next year he gave two different sermons inspired by the scene, one for All Saints Day and one at the start of Advent (English Works of John Fisher), 9. She also notes that he arranged for them to be printed in 1532 in support of Catherine during the divorce proceedings (11). 3. CSPV, II, 618. May 15, 1515. 4. Brown, Four years, I, 120. CSPV, II, 638. 5. Ibid, 120. 6. NA SP 1/10/165–170, fol. 165r. 7. Anglica Historia, 232–3. Although this anecdote may represent anti-Wolsey rhetoric, nonetheless it seems a reasonable approximation of the Cardinal’s typical actions. 8. L&P, II.i, 1604. 9. BL Cott. Titus B.I, fol. 71r, to Henry. The original reads, “her dyed and fry wyell the wyche your grace schall wyell parssyef yt et tys doun wyet good mynd and hart.” The letter to Wolsey may be found in the same manuscript, fol. 313r. 10. CB, 61. 11. For 1526, see NA SP E30/1446. Henry’s great seal is attached. The 1525 document is a fragment of a draft, according to L&P, Addenda, 477. 12. For a reproduction of the map, see Mitton’s Maps of Old London, 234–5. For more information on the building, see 47–48 of Maurice Howard’s “Power and the Early-Tudor Courtier’s House.” 13. Kingsford, A Survey of London by John Stow Vol. II, 59. The text refers to the 1603 edition. 14. “Power and the Early-Tudor Courtier’s House,” 47. 15. Ibid., 46. 16. Shoberl, Suffolk, 194. 17. For a complete description of the house, see Gunn and Lindley’s “Charles Brandon’s Westhorpe,” including full text of a manuscript survey of the building done in 1538.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 229

2/18/2011 3:54:59 PM

230

Notes to Pages 122–124

18. Wodderspoon, Historic Sites, 61–62. See also Gunn and Lindley, “Charles Brandon’s Westhorpe,” 281. 19. Gunn, CB, 69. 20. For the bridge, see Gunn and Lindley, “Charles Brandon’s Westhorpe,” 279 and for Mary’s arms, see Richardson, WQ , 213–214. 21. For a sketch of her personal seal, containing her arms surrounded by another fleur-de-lis on the left and a Tudor rose en soleil on the right, see BL Addit. MS 33748, fol. 2v. 22. BL Cott. Vitellius C.XI, fol. 155r. Gunn, CB, 63. 23. Gunn observes that Brandon’s relations flocked to their household, including Frances Palsgrave, and the esquires George Heveningham and William Tyrrell; he also notes that Brandon followed contemporary practice by turning to his kin, especially the Wingfields, to assist in running his lands. See CB, 63, 45. 24. “la Royne ma tant Instante et prye de lavoir que nullement me luy ay peu dire du contraire.” BL Addit. MS 14840, fol. 2r. May 30, 1515. Brandon had two daughters by his first marriage to Anne Browne: Anne, born circa 1506, and Mary, born 1510. He may well have been using Mary as an excuse to avoid offending Margaret. Now that he was married to a queen, his own household offered his daughters great advantage. 25. Mary and Brandon sometimes helped to advance their charges’ prospects through carefully chosen marriages; Gunn notes several such matches between the Brandons’ protégés and local women (CB), 65. In 1517, however, a problem occurred when a Mistress Jerningham attempted to play matchmaker for her stepdaughter Lady Anne Grey, née Jerningham, and John, Lord Berkeley, one of Henry’s wards in Brandon’s custody. The horrified duke promptly wrote Wolsey to disclaim any knowledge of the match, protesting “I had liever have spent a thousand pounds than any such pageants should have been done within the queen’s house and mine.” See Green, Lives, 116–7 and L&P, II.ii, 3018, March 17, 1517. Although one might be tempted to see links between Mary and the clandestine marriage of her lady-in-waiting, Brandon skirts any hint of her involvement by specifying that the betrothal took place after Jerningham left Mary’s company. Regardless, the weight of the responsibility Mary and Brandon bore for their charges is clear in the duke’s worry that Henry might take offense, even though the matter ultimately came to naught. 26. English Aristocratic Women, 65. 27. L&P, IV.i, 547. 28. See Green, Lives, 115; Richardson, WQ , 215; L&P, IV.ii, 2972. There was a Villebresme who carried messages to Mary and referred to her as his mistress (L&P, II.i, 913). 29. L&P, IV.ii, 4229. For Popincourt, see BNF MS Français 2932, fol. 3. For examples of letters to Montmorency, see BNF MS Français 3002, fol. 48 and Français 3014, fol. 28. In addition Gunn notes that St. Martin had been Mary and Brandon’s secretary from 1515 to 1520, but in either 1525 or 1526, Mary moved Henry to ask Louise for him to come back to her employ. He also notes that St. Martin was accused of being a spy. See CB, 91. For the accusation, see L&P IV.i, 2047. However, since St. Martin was still employed as Mary’s secretary in 1528, it seems that accusation was not pursued. 30. HMC: Lord Middleton, 334.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 230

2/18/2011 3:54:59 PM

Notes to Pages 124–126

231

31. Ibid., October 28, 1523, November 17, 1523, and December 1524 (360–361 and 378, respectively). 32. L&P, V, p. 309. 33. Both list “jocatoribus Regine Francisce,” albeit with various spellings; the first was for 2s, the second for 2s, 9d. See Dymond’s Thetford Priory, 412, 520. Dymond observes that the second occasion includes a note that the prior paid the whole sum without any supplement from the convent, suggesting that ordinarily such payments would be joint (notes 815 and 918). See also Chambers, Medieval Stage, Vol. II, 246. 34. Clopper, Drama, Play, and Game, 112, note 15. 35. Dymond, Thetford Priory, 602, 708; far more often Brandon’s bear-ward visited. 36. Owen and Blakeway, A History of Shrewsbury vol. I, 328. There is also a reference to the Duke of Suffolk’s players performing in Dover between 1524 and 1527 (L&P, IV, appendix, 89). 37. Drama, Play, and Game, 14. 38. Plays of Persuasion, 7–8. 39. Walker’s Plays of Persuasion provides an excellent survey of such drama broadly on pp. 8–24, then examines specific cases of Skelton’s Magnyfycence, Heywood’s Play of the Weather, and Bale’s King Johan, among others. 40. However, Lancashire makes a strong case that Brandon sponsored the production of the interlude Hick Scorner at Manor Place (later Suffolk Place) in 1514 (Two Tudor Interludes), 33–6. See Walker, Plays of Persuasion, 42–59, for a reading of the play’s political allegory. 41. Caraccioli, An historical account of Sturbridge, 15. 42. For Norwich, see Palmer, A Booke . . . Greate Yermouthe, 82; for King’s Lynn, see Flenley, Six Town Chronicles of England,195 and HMC: Southhampton and King’s Lynn, 173. 43. HMC: Southhampton and King’s Lynn, 173. The town of Eye also records payment for a present to Mary and Brandon, probably in 1516. NA Eye Borough Records, ref. EE2/L2. 44. Flenley, Six Town Chronicles, 195. 45. Gurney’s “Extracts from the Household and Privy Accounts,” 435–6, 447. 46. For example, a Mr. Tresham sent Mary and Brandon each a present of gloves in 1530 (L&P, IV.iii, 6788). In November 5, 1526, the Council of the North, for instance, informed Wolsey that they planned to send a gift to Henry, and asked his advice over whether to send similar presents to Catherine, Mary, Brandon, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Marquises of Dorset and Exter (L&P, IV.ii, 2608). 47. For more information on the exchange of letters, gifts, and poetry as a means of maintaining relationships, see Donawerth, “Women’s Poetry,” 3–18. 48. Mary visited Thetford in 1516/7; see Dymond, Thetford Priory, 341, 343. For Butley, see Bodl. Tanner MS 90, fol. 26v for the 1516 visit, fol. 32r-v for 1527, and fol. 33r-v for 1528. Dickens has edited this manuscript; see Butley Priory. Mary’s letter dated September 28, 1519, is written from Butley as well. NA SP 1/19/27. See also Green, Lives, 113–14, and Gunn, CB, 79. 49. Translated in Green, Lives, 113–14. 50. Bodl. MS Tanner 90, fol. 33r-v. See also Richardson, WQ , 225 and Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, Vol. 3, 128–9.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 231

2/18/2011 3:55:00 PM

232

Notes to Pages 126–130

51. Lives, 136. 52. L&P, IV.ii, appendix, 48. June 16. 53. Butley Priory, 60; Knowles, 129. Regarding donations, there are records of individual donations (in 1528, for example Mary gave 16s, 8d) but there is no indication of total gifts (129). 54. Hall, Chronicle, 582. Although Gunn claims that the joust was never held and that Hall must have reconstructed the events from the account books, Nicolo Sagudino, Giustinian’s secretary, records the Italian ambassadors’ impressions of the May Day celebration and joust, noting that Henry had done especially well precisely because he wished them to send news of his prowess to Francis. CSPV, II, 624. For Gunn, see CB, 38. 55. See L&P, II.i, 1153, Hall, Chronicle, 584, L&P, II.ii, 4055, and L&P, IV.i, 2159, respectively. These date from 1515–1526 and are just a few examples of such references to Mary. 56. L&P, II.i, 1113; the preface gives a complete translation of the letter on pp. xlvii–lii. For full text of the letter in French, see Taschereau, Revue rétrospective, 444–58. See also Richardson, WQ , 195. 57. L&P, II.i, xlix. 58. Ibid., l. 59. Revue rétrospective, 453. 60. CSPV, II, 918. July 10, 1517. 61. CSPV, II, 920. July 10, 1517. 62. L&P, II.ii, 3446, July 7, 1517. 63. Quoted in CSPV, II, 918. 64. CB, 67. 65. CSPV, II, 1085. October 5, 1518. 66. CSPV, II, 1088. October 9, 1518. 67. Hall, Chronicle, 597. 68. For the kiss, see CA MS M6bis, fol. 51v; for the banqueting, see Bodl. MS Ashmolean 1116, fol. 100v. Polydore Vergil even speculated that Charles’s refusal to dance at any of these events could be an indication of his regret at losing Mary (Anglica Historia), 269. 69. Streitberger, Court Revels, 112. L&P, III.ii, p.1559. 70. Hall, Chronicle, 631–2. 71. CSPS, Supplement to Volumes I and II, July 3 1523. 72. CSPV, IV, 105. May 7, 1527, Gasparo Spinelli to Lodovico Spinelli. Hall, Chronicle, 723. Streitberger, Court Revels, 127–9. 73. Richardson, WQ , 205. 74. Anglo, Spectacle, 140–2. For Anglo’s overview of the event, see pp. 137–69. Russell’s Field of Cloth of Gold provides a thorough account of events, while Doran and Starkey’s Man and Monarch supplies reproductions of the tent design and other illustrations (93–7). L&P, III.i contains dozens of calendar entries, starting at 673 and continuing through 878, as does CSPV, III, starting with item 50 and continuing throughout entries through the month of June, 1520. For early modern accounts, see Hall, Chronicle, 600–20; Vergil, Anglica Historia, 269–71; Holinshed, Chronicle, 641–55; Fleuranges, Mémoires, 69–71; Jerdan, Rutland Papers, 28–49; and Bamforth and Dupèbe’s edition of Jacobus Sylvius’s Francisi Francorum Regis et Henrici Anglorum.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 232

2/18/2011 3:55:00 PM

Notes to Pages 130–132

233

75. Dickens called it a “glorious excuse for the two courts to show off” (The Courts of Europe, 156). Anglo describes the event in detail but condemns it as “a late flowering of the most extravagant medieval chivalry,” a missed opportunity for real diplomacy that could have cemented peace between England, France, and Spain had Charles been invited (Spectacle, 168). For more recent views, see Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy, 158, 163–4, and Richardson’s “Eternal Peace, Occasional War.” 76. “Eternal Peace, Occasional War,” 45. 77. Richardson, “The Field of Cloth of Gold.” 78. Selling the Tudor Monarchy, 164. 79. The list of Mary’s attendants is no longer extant, but the king’s list indicates that Brandon brought with him five chaplains, ten gentlemen, fifty-five servants, and thirty horses. Jerdan, Rutland Papers, 29. 80. NA SP 1/19/228. 81. Qtd. in L&P III.i, 698. March 26, 1520. To be fair, men’s appearance was also important; their handsomeness and athleticism would be similarly scrutinized. 82. CSPV, III, 92. June 12–19, 1520. 83. Anglica Historia, 269. 84. CSPV, III, 90. June 19, 1520. It is tempting to speculate that this piece was the much-contested Mirror of Naples, yet that seems unlikely, given that no one else comments and the French surely would have (not to mention the improbability of Henry allowing Mary to borrow the necklace). 85. CSPV, III, 50, 80, 84, and Bodl. MS Ashmolean 1116, fol. 101v. 86. CSPV, III, 84. See Sanuto, Diarii, Vol. XXIX, 22, “la regina Maria dentro una letica d’oro lavorata a zigli con letere do, videlicet una L. et una M. legate insieme, et per tutto pochi spini zoè l’arma dil re Lodovico.” 87. For a summary of some examples, see Russell, Field of Cloth of Gold, 132–3. 88. “The Field of Cloth of Gold.” 89. At Hampton Court Palace, Henry would later order that traces of his marriage to Anne Boleyn be erased by eradicating all the stone interlocking H&A symbols; a few were overlooked and survive today. Clearly such images had power. 90. CSPV, III, 94. 91. Field of Cloth of Gold, 125–6. 92. Hall, Chronicle, 600–1. 93. Marguerite d’Alençon, Francis’s sister, was present at the event, but details of her participation are not recorded as frequently as Mary’s, nor is there indication that she traveled with her brother to visit the English as Mary did. The only time Marguerite is mentioned as a foil to Mary is in the first banquet, that she is present to greet Henry as Mary did Francis. CSPV, III, 69. 94. L&P, III.i, 870. 95. CA MS M6bis fol. 9r. For Henry’s welcome by the French, see L&P, III.i, 869. 96. CSPV, III, 69. 97. CA MS M6bis fol. 9r. The fountain also spouted upon his departure. 98. CSPV, III, 50. 99. Bodl. MS Ashmolean 1116, fol. 101r.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 233

2/18/2011 3:55:00 PM

234

Notes to Pages 132–136

100. L&P, III.i, 869. 101. L&P, III.i, 870. 102. CA MS M6bis fol. 9v. Soardino also mentions her presence; see CSPV, III, 85. 103. Jerdan, Rutland Papers, 44–6. He notes that Henry himself added Buckingham’s name to the list, demonstrating how concerned the king was with such details. 104. CA MS M6bis fol. 10r. Ultimately, the overall winners were judged to be Henry, Francis, Brandon, the Count of St. Pol, and others from either side. Russell, Field of Cloth of Gold, 137. 105. Stevens, Music and Poetry, 405–6. Stevens contends that the song may have been written for Catherine’s voice (241). Russell agrees, noting that it may have been sung at the Cloth of Gold (141). 106. CSPV, III, 90. 107. Bodl. MS Ashmolean 1116, fol. 102v. CA MS M6bis fol. 10v. 108. Bodl. MS Ashmolean 1116, fol. 102v. Russell speculates that it may have been Sir Christopher Barker, Suffolk Herald, who wrote this account because of how closely it records Brandon’s activities (Field of Cloth of Gold ), 122. 109. V.iv.17–19. Wells and Taylor, Shakespeare. 110. CSPV, II, 661. 111. Qtd. in L&P, II.i, 1585, February 24, 1516. 112. Bodl. Wood MS F33, fols. 45r-46v. BL Eger. 985, fols. 61v-63v contains virtually the same account, as does BL Addit. 6113, fols. 117v-119v. 113. Bodl. Ashmolean MS 1116, fol. 86r-v. 114. BL Eger. 985, fols. 63v-64r. BL Addit. 6113, fols. 116v-117r, contains the same version, save that the initial letter “I” is large and decorated with swirls. The chronicler lists the date as Thursday, July 17, and at the end, states that the girl was born on St. Francis’s Day, but Green notes that July 17 was a Friday in 1517, and moreover, that St. Francis’s Day fell on Thursday the 16th, making the day a likely error in the manuscript. See Lives, 118, note 3. 115. Warnicke notes that it was Lady Elizabeth Boleyn, Anne’s mother, who performed this office (Rise and Fall), 36. Anne did not return to England until 1521. 116. Assuming that records would indicate Mary giving birth when she was at court or visiting Butley priory, the windows of opportunity for childbirth suggest summer of 1518, summer of 1519, the second half of 1520, or 1521. If Steven Gunn is correct that Eleanor was named for Charles V’s sister, 1518, the year Henry’s daughter Mary was betrothed to the French dauphin, seems an unlikely time to honor the Anglo-Burgundian connection (CB), 62. She may well have been born in late 1520 or 1521 after the successful meeting between Henry and Charles at Gravelines. 117. CSPV, II, 1287. 118. Chronicle, 703. See also L&P, IV.ii, 1431. 119. A record of Mary’s and Brandon’s epitaphs includes epitaphs for their two sons named Harry, the latter of whom was named the Earl of Lincoln. CA MS R.36, fol. 55v. 120. Byrne, Letters of King Henry VIII, 424–5. There is no mention of Henry Brandon because he died in 1534. 121. NA SP 1/19/169. January 22, 1520. Mary to Wolsey.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 234

2/18/2011 3:55:00 PM

Notes to Pages 136–140

235

122. All references taken from L&P, II.i. See items 718, 791, 989, 1023, and 1292, respectively. The phrase “for services to, etc.” occurs in all but the last. 123. She received 100l upon leaving for France. L&P II.ii, p. 1471. 124. L&P, II.i., 989 and 1374. 125. NA SP 1/9/158. November 13, 1514. 126. Ellis, Original Letters, 3rd ser., Vol. II, 213. 127. Gunn notes that Palsgrave succeeded in raising funds by selling one of the benefices, although that he did not receive the new position he requested. CB, 99–100. 128. Ellis, Original Letters, 3rd ser., Vol. II, 214. Vaughan notes that Palsgrave refused to allow him a copy; the author wanted to ensure that a demand for his teaching services would continue, so he was careful about selling too many. 129. Dowling argues that although dedications cannot guarantee interest in the subject, they do suggest the possibility that the patron’s tastes were sufficiently known to give author some reason to anticipate a return on the investment (Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII), 238. 130. Bennett, English Books and Readers, 95. For the extant fragment, see Introductions in Frensshe. 131. De contemptu mundi, fol. A2r. 132. “Transformation or Continuity?” 13–14. 133. “luy donnant par vous à congnoistre que à ma requeste ceste ma rescription luy a esté prouffitable.” Qtd. by Société de l’histoire de l’art Français in Nouvelle Archives, 155. Henry also gave Ambroise a reward of 20 crowns in 1531. See L&P, V, “Privy Purse Expenses,” fol. 113. 134. Sharpe discusses the importance of such patronage and artwork at Henry’s court in particular. Selling the Tudor Monarchy, 130–40. 135. See BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 262r, for example. 136. NA SP 1/59/126. 137. L&P, IV.ii, 3264. Rymer, Foedera, vol. 6.ii, 82. 138. BL Cott. Vespasian F.III fol. 40r. 139. Green, who quotes the full text of one letter I was unable to locate, places the signature on the upper left corner but it is not clear that she is necessarily replicating the original (Lives), 133–134. Either way, this is still an unusual move for Mary. 140. Women Letter-Writers in Tudor England, 47–48. 141. For facsimile images, see Pryor, Elizabeth I: Her Life in Letters, 60, 84, and 120; Man and Monarch, 123 and 182, for examples that show the signature above the body; both texts also provide examples of the other placements. 142. On January 15, 1528, she begins the campaign; a translation of the letter is available in Green, Lives, 133–134. Then, on June 18 and December 26, 1528, she writes again; see BNF MS Français 2932, fol. 11 and Français 3014, fol. 28. See also L&P, IV.ii, 4392, 5064. 143. BNF MS Français 2932, fol. 3. June 20, (1528). 144. “Je vouldroys son bien & advancement afin que de moy eust tousjours souvenance” MS Français 3014, fol. 28. 145. “Je vous en veulx ung peu Importuner / ce que pourrez envers moy faire de votre couste en chose ou Il vous plaira memployer.” Ibid. Gunn argues that Mary had no success in the affair, but offers no support beyond the multiple letters (CB), 92. It would be equally possible to interpret her lack of further

9780230620308_08_not.indd 235

2/18/2011 3:55:01 PM

236

146.

147.

148.

149. 150. 151. 152.

153. 154.

155. 156. 157. 158.

159. 160.

161. 162. 163. 164. 165.

Notes to Pages 140–142 letters as success negating the need. Indeed, in the letters, she explains that Montmorency has agreed to help multiple times; he simply required reminding and Mary’s campaign accomplished that. Muriel St. Clare Byrne’s work on the Lisle family letters illustrates how the act of gift-giving would accumulate a debt that could be traded for later favors (Lisle Letters), 110–29. “[ Je] vous Remercie bien appercevant que ne metez en oubly les biensfaitz du temps passe et la nourriture dentre nous deux enquoy Je vous Reppute tousjours lune des myennes / et me tens plus familliere de vous que nul autre par dela / par quoy Je vous veulx employer.” BNF MS Français 2932, fol. 3. “[ Je] vous pris ne vueillez dormir en ce / mais tousjours le solliciter de sorte que Je puisse obtenir ma Requeste envers luy et de temps a autre Je soye parvous advertyr de sa Response.” Ibid. “Crime, Sanctuary, and Royal Authority,” 315. NA SP 1/19/27. NA SP 1/19/169. January 22, 1520. L&P, III.i, p. 297. There is also a second pardon recorded a year later, but no indication why; perhaps there was a problem with the first or the second is simply an instance of bureaucratic excess or additional charges required pardon (L&P, III.i, p. 529). L&P, IV.i, 57. January 23, 1524. There is a record of Anthoine de Crequy, a French lord, writing Brandon in 1523, but clearly that was not the end of the matter, since Hampton was still in prison a year later. L&P, III.ii, 3535. NA SP 1/40/212. January 16, 1527. See L&P, V, 978, for Eleanor Verney’s annuity of 50 marks, citing her service to Mary, Margaret, and their parents. A newe enterlude . . . godly queene Hester, B1r. Plays of Persuasion, 102–12; Bevington, Tudor Drama and Politics, 87–93. Michele Osherow discusses the figure of Esther more generally in “Crafting Queens.” “Powerful Obedience,” 117–140. Bevington notes that as early as the fourteenth century, Richard II used the story to woo the people of London (Tudor Drama), 87. In this iteration of the political allegory, he argues that Hester represents Catherine of Aragon (88–90). Dewick, Coronation Book, 45, 48. L&P, II.i, 705. July 14, 1515. Dacre’s letter to Henry’s council mentions Margaret writing to Mary and Henry the year before. L&P, II.i, 834. L&P, II.i, 913. The lord in question may be Brandon. BL Cott. Caligula B.II, fol. 385r. This letter, written in French, may be the one Villebresme mentions carrying for Mary since Albany makes reference to him as the bearer, which would mean that Mary probably wrote on August 6. There is no date given in Albany’s letter; L&P, II.i, 1025 calendars this document with two other letters from Albany written in Edinburgh on October 13, 1515, yet those letters explain that Albany sends Rougecross to update Henry and Brandon on the events since Villebresme’s departure, which would suggest an earlier date (1024, 1026).

9780230620308_08_not.indd 236

2/18/2011 3:55:01 PM

Notes to Pages 143–146

237

166. “vous suppliant madam en ensuivant Ce que mescripuez vouloir tousjours tenir main envers le Roy votre frere alentretenement De la paix powr le bien de son Royaume et de ce pays” (fol. 385r). 167. In a messy italic, he writes, “Madame touchant la Reine de scosse votre seur Je vous Jure ma foy que de ma part Je li ay fest et fera tout la plesr et servisse a moy posyble.” He adds a few more words (“et me sera Iames come autre . . .”) but these are faded and the last word(s) illegible. 168. L&P, II.i, 1893. May 16, 1516. Richard Sacheverell, writing to the Earl of Shrewsbury, notes their departure. 169. Early Tudor court, 145–6. 170. Early modern accounts include Hall, Chronicle, 586–91, Stow, Annales, 848–51, Vergil, Anglica Historia, 243–247, and Godwin, Annales, 36. CSPV, II, contains the abstracts of several letters from Italian observers, including Giustinian, Chieregato, and Nicolo Sagudino (items 879, 881, 883, 887, 910). For the full text of Giustinian’s letters, see Brown, Four years, Vol. II, 68–76. See also Richardson, WQ , 205–8, Yungblut, Strangers settled here amongst us, 40–41, 73–74, and Sutton, Mercery of London, 354–356. 171. Hall lists several groups adding up to 1,000 (589). Giustinian says 2,000; see Brown, Four years, II, 70. 172. Sagudino has a detailed account (CSPV, II, 910), as does Stow, 851. 173. CSPV, II, 887. Agnes Strickland also records the text of a ballad celebrating Catherine’s kindness and pity on this occasion. See Lives of the Queens of England Vol. IV (Philadelphia: Blanchard and Lea, 1852), 87. 174. The French Fetish from Chaucer to Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 175. L&P, II.i, 826. 176. L&P, II.i, 827–828. 177. Brown, Four years, Vol. I, 159–160. 178. CSPV, II, 802. 179. L&P, II.ii, 2958. February 1517. That request nearly opened old wounds over who was to blame for the Castile marriage falling apart. Worcester reported some mockery from Nassau and Ravenstein, to which he replied that Charles had rejected Mary, not the reverse. L&P, II.ii, 3054. March 25, 1517. 180. L&P, II.ii, appendix 43 and 4479 (Bonnivet and the other ambassadors to Francis. October 4, 1518.) 181. L&P, III.i, 1174. Bonnivet writes Wolsey that Mary’s ambassadors are returning after negotiating matters regarding the dowry, to the satisfaction of all. See also L&P, III.ii, 1441. 182. L&P, III.ii, 2958. Coby outlines how this speech led to Cromwell becoming one of Wolsey’s men; see Thomas Cromwell, 48–9. 183. L&P, IV.i, 586. For a broad overview of English policy during this period, see Guy’s Tudor England, 106–109. 184. L&P, IV.i, 1093. 185. L&P, IV.i, 1398. 186. NA SP 1/35/234. 187. L&P, IV.i, 1600. 188. CA MS R.36. fols. 38r-40v. 189. Gunn, CB, 90. See also Brandon to Wolsey, September 2, 1525. L&P IV.i, 1615. 190. NA SP 1/36/36.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 237

2/18/2011 3:55:02 PM

238

Notes to Pages 147–150

191. L&P, IV.i, 1705. 192. L&P, IV.i, 2064. He wrote Wolsey in March of 1526 that he was experiencing difficulties with lawsuits and in meeting with Francis since the king traveled frequently. 193. L&P, IV.i, 2256. The English ambassador John Tayler wrote to Passano to clarify who was in charge of Mary’s revenue, informing him that St. Martin had arrived with letters from Mary and Brandon, as well as Henry to Louise, about Hampton’s authority. 194. BNF MS Français 3002, fol. 48. 195. The original reads, “dieu a donne ceste heur aux dames.” CA MS R.36, fol. 33r. 196. The original reads, “vous mdam fustes la clefz” (fol. 34r). 197. The original lines read, “vous fustes ung des principaulx & milleurs moyens de la continuacion de ceste bonne & saincte paix” and “bonnes & honestes parrolles” (fol. 34r). 198. On December 30, Passano wrote Brinon to inform him that he [Passano] told Louise that Brinon had found Mary to be receptive and helpful. The original reads, “bonissima et accordata”; Jacqueton gives the full text in La politique extérieure de Louise de Savoie, 405. Gunn discusses this meeting in context with Brandon’s renewed prominence at court (CB, 101). 199. CA MS R.36, fol. 35r. 200. BNF MS Dupuy 462, fol. 32r. May 9, 1526. At Southwark Place. 201. The original reads, “sil me eust estre possible et par pourter partie de votre Enny vous donnes quelque Relasche Je leusse faict du meilleur cueur.” 202. The original reads, “Je aure tousjours besoing en mes affairez de votre bonne grace.” 203. L&P, II.ii, 3018. Brandon to Wolsey. Morrison’s Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England notes the history of the Walsingham shrine’s popularity with women, especially the frequency of women leaving bequests to the shrine in their wills (17). 204. Qtd. in Green, Lives, 116. 205. L&P, Addenda, 367. 206. BL Cott. Caligula B.VI, fol.119v. Both Green and Ellis render the phrase as “ny[phews] the prences” (Lives, 116 and Original Letters, I, 1st ser, 125). They are incorrect; the word is clearly “nyce.” J.S. Brewer, the editor of this volume of L&P entries, agrees with my reading; see II.i, 2347. Moreover, it makes no sense for Mary to ask Henry about the health of the princes in plural, for Margaret’s second son Alexander died in December 1515. 207. L&P, II.ii, p. 1476. 208. Catherine of Aragon, 188. I have not yet found corroborating evidence for this fascinating assertion. 209. BL Cott. Caligula B.VI, fol.119r and BL Harl. 6986, fol. 11r. 210. See BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fols. 247r and 253v, for “humble” and fol.148r for the Knight letter. 211. L&P, III.ii, 3162. 212. L&P, V, 686. 213. L&P, II.ii, 4034–4035. 214. BL Addit. 19398, fol. 44r. A facsimile copy may be found in Man and Monarch, 92. Buckingham’s trial and execution in 1521 provides a terminal date for its composition.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 238

2/18/2011 3:55:02 PM

Notes to Pages 150–152

239

215. CB, 56–62. 216. Hall, 631; L&P, III.ii, p.1559; Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, 37; Warnicke, Rise and Fall, 37. Warnicke also speculates that Anne may have joined Mary and Brandon’s household after her return from France; although intriguing, I can find no documentary evidence to substantiate her hypothesis (38–39). 217. CSPV, IV, 105; Dickens, Butley Priory, 51–52. 218. NA SP 1/47/223. 219. Mary’s letters indicate her whereabouts; on March 17, she writes Wolsey from the manor at Rising; on June 20 she writes Jane Popincourt from London, and on August 8 she writes Montmorency from Wingfield Castle. See NA SP 1/59/126 and BNF MSS Français 2932, fol. 3 and 3002, fol. 48r. See also Dickens, Butley Priory, 54–55. 220. Dickens, Butley Priory, 54–55. 221. CSPS, IV.i, 232. Starkey points out that Chapuys’s obvious bias against Anne does not disqualify him as a valid source since every source is prejudiced in some way; moreover, Chapuys diligently reported his own sources of information, all of whom were prominent at court. See Six Wives, 360. 222. CSPS, IV.ii, 802. Chapuys reports that Henry forced Catherine to relinquish her jewels by pointing out Mary’s submission in the matter. 223. Henry VIII, 229. Hall reports the famous 1529 encounter when Brandon, disgusted by the delays in deciding the case, shouted in front of Wolsey and the Cardinal Legate Lorenzo Campeggio that “there was never Legate nor Cardinall, that did good in Englande” (758). George Cavendish, one of Wolsey’s gentlemen-ushers, supplied the Cardinal’s supposed response, that “Sir of all men within this realm, you have least cause to dispraise or be offended with cardinals; for if I, simple cardinal, had not been, you should have had at this present no head upon your shoulders,” and that after Wolsey’s reproaches concluded, Brandon left silently. The Life and Death of Thomas Wolsey, 122–3. Both accounts are propaganda in their fashion, yet both seem plausible: that Brandon’s support of Henry might lead him to abandon Wolsey and yet quietly regret the necessity when confronted with the justifiable charge of ingratitude. 224. CSPS, IV.i, 302. Gunn also agrees that Brandon was opposed to Anne, but notes that he had to conform to Henry’s wishes (CB), 118–9. 225. Qtd. in CSPS, IV.ii, 739. The original reads, “desarçonner le roy de sa folie.” 226. The twelfth section of the book does caution against those orders that have relaxed their discipline. In his edition, John O’Malley gives an overview of arguments that the last part was a later addition (Collected Works), 130–3. 227. Gunn, Brandon, 116. 228. Bodl. Wood MS F33, fol. 45r. 229. CA MS I.15, fol. 105v. See also Ford, Mary Tudor, 35, 37. Ford includes a complete transcription of CA MS I.15, beginning at fol. 104r. When the chronicler lists the painter’s charge, he identifies the saint as St. Charles, but in describing the procession notes Charlemagne. 230. Eamon Duffy notes that since the 1520s, such images were becoming controversial and that by the 1530s, images at shrines and churches were being removed or destroyed (Stripping of the Altars), 381. 231. Avril and Reynaud, Les Manuscrits à Peintures en France, item 173. See also Evans, “The Rediscovery of a Royal Manuscript,” 81–2.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 239

2/18/2011 3:55:02 PM

240

Notes to Pages 152–153

232. L&P, IV.ii, 5859. See also Richardson, WQ , 242–6, for an overview of Brandon’s first marriages to Anne Browne and Margaret Mortimer relative to the bull. 233. CSPV, IV, 761. The original reads, “per parole injuriose ditte contra madama Anna de la sorella di questa Maestà duchessa di Sofolch, che fo regina di Franza.” Sanuto, Diarii, Vol. 56, 287. 234. See L&P, V, 1139, no. 11 for pardon; see 1183 for Brandon’s denial that his servants were seeking a kind of vigilant justice. 235. L&P, V, 1183. CSPV, IV, 761. Capello’s original reads, “La materia del divortio ogni giorno vien più dificile.” Sanuto, Diarii, Vol. 56, 287. 236. On July 31, Capello reported that Henry had stayed two days with Mary and Brandon, but provided no hint as to the reason. CSPV, IV, 792. Capello’s original reads, “Già do giorni soa maestà è col duca di Sopholch, et sua sorella la regina.” Sanuto, Diarii, Vol. 56, 793. 237. CSPS, IV.ii, 993. 238. CSPS, IV.ii, 995. 239. L&P, V, 1316. CSPV, IV, 802. The original reads, “et la sorela de questa Maestà fu regina di Franza, la qual, come se dice, ha grandemente recusato de andar.” Sanuto, Diarii, Vol. 57, 24. Capello’s line is a little confusing; he notes that Anne will be accompanied by some of the chief ladies of the realm, including the duchess of Norfolk, and the king’s sister, “who it is said, has adamantly refused to go.” There is no record, however, of Mary accompanying Brandon, and since Chapuys specifically discussed Brandon’s departure, that would be a strange omission. An even stranger omission would be Hall forgetting Mary’s name in his list of ladies who danced at Calais; he notes that Anne was with Francis and the Countess of Derby with the King of Navarre, leaving the other five women nameless (793). Moreover, Mary’s presence would have been a coup; Henry needed women of rank to support Anne. Warnicke points out that had Mary been well enough to go, Henry need not have ennobled Anne, since his sister’s rank would allow her to lead a state visit (Rise and Fall), 115–6. Ultimately, given that Capello began another clause with “et” and a new point, it seems more likely he was stringing together a series of sentences, or that even if he intended to suggest Mary was going, she nonetheless refused. 240. L&P, V, 1294. September 1, 1532. Starkey notes that Elizabeth was also a close friend of Catherine’s (Six Wives), 460. 241. L&P, VI, 212; CSPS, IV.ii, 1055. Moreover, Mary wrote a letter to Arthur, Lord Lisle that March 30, noting London as her residence. BL Cott. Vespasian F.III, fol. 40r. Frances’s marriage must have taken place by March 17, for account book references to her dinner with her cousin the Princess Mary that evening give her that title. L&P, VI, 1540. 242. English Aristocratic Women, 237–238. 243. BL Harl. 6986, fol. 11r. A more recent hand notes in the upper left corner, “1528 Mary the French Q. A letter of compliment only” and at some point, the date “1528” was written at the end of the letter’s body. Although the L&P editors catalogue the letter in June, 1533, they explain that the letter is undated and therefore they use the date of Mary’s death as a terminus ad quem (VI, 693). Ellis’s chronological organization in Original Letters suggests the letter belongs in 1528, which accords with the marginal notes on the letter; however, those notes may be Ellis’s own (I, 1st ser., 304). Green, by contrast, quotes

9780230620308_08_not.indd 240

2/18/2011 3:55:03 PM

Notes to Pages 153–154

244.

245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255.

256.

257. 258. 259.

260.

241

from a second letter by Brandon on the same matter and suggests that both were written a few months after March 16, 1520 (the date of another letter by Brandon referring to Mary’s illness) (Lives 121–122). However, the March letter notes her improvement; 1520 also seems doubtful since the Field of Cloth of Gold took place in June. More significantly, Brandon’s letter was addressed to Wolsey, so the Cardinal’s death in 1529 gives a new terminus. Gunn notes that in the mid-1520s, a doctor named “Master Leonard” joined Brandon’s household, where he remained for twenty years, but that doesn’t mean that Mary wouldn’t necessarily consult “Master Peter” as well (CB), 64. She did go to London in 1528, which provides some evidence for that date. Since records survive of Mary’s illness on several occasions throughout her life and given the lack of any conclusive internal reference that could date the letter more particularly, I have chosen not to assign a date, save to note a likely 1521–1528 composition. For example, see Starkey, who even describes her language as “pathetic.” Six Wives, 491. Richardson and Perry follow the 1528 date (WQ , 253–4, Sisters, 181). Green, Lives, 3. BL Cott. Caligula D.VI, fol. 256r. L&P, Addenda, 210. NA SP 1/19/228. March 16. Qtd. in Lives, 121–122. This letter is not calendared, nor can I locate its full text. BL Harl. 6986, fol. 11r. Starkey, Six Wives 490; CSPS, IV.ii, 1072. He wrote a letter to Lisle from London. L&P, VI, 666. L&P, VI, 736. Ford, Mary Tudor, 36. Sara Jayne Steen plausibly conjectures Mary may have suffered from porphyria; she diagnoses Arbella Stuart’s symptoms and traces them to James I and ultimately back to Margaret and Mary. “How Subject to Interpretation,’ 110–1. Alan Rushton agrees (Royal Maladies, 72). Hume, Chronicle of Henry VIII, 135. Hume notes that twelve copies of the Chronica del Rey Enrico Otavo de Ingleterra were found in Madrid, one of which notes that it was copied in 1556; the author claims to have been an eyewitness, but gets many facts wrong, including that Brandon had no children by Mary, but all by his first wife. The writer clearly detested Brandon, condemning him as a sinner who killed his son by stealing that son’s fiancé (Brandon’s last wife, Catherine Willoughby, was initially engaged to young Henry). See, for example, Plowden, Lady Jane Grey, 35. CSPV, IV, 927, 934; L&P, VI, 720. The original reads, “il y a trois jours que je vous ay escript la mort de la Royne Marie Duchesse de Sulsfoltte [sic] laquelle estoit bien aymée en ce Royaume, & mesme du commun de ceste ville qui la regrette fort” (Camusat, Meslanges historiques, 133r). See also L&P, VI, 723. Dinteville, who was one of the ambassadors immortalized in Holbein’s painting, presumably means London by “this city.” The original reads, “j’ay veu par vostre lettre du dernier jour du mois passé la certaincté de la mort de ma belle soeur la Royne Marie Duchesse de Susfolk, dont il ma tresfort despleu & desplaist pour l’ennuy & desplaisir que je suis

9780230620308_08_not.indd 241

2/18/2011 3:55:03 PM

242

261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270.

271. 272. 273.

274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279.

Notes to Pages 155–157 seur que mon bon frere & perpetuel allié le Roy d’Angleterre en aura souffert & porté” (Ibid., 133v). See also L&P, VI, 846. Ford, Mary Tudor, 36; Green, Lives, 138–9. Ritual in Early Modern Europe, 55. Although discussing fourteenth-century Florence, his point is still relevant. L&P, VI, 797. Ford, Mary Tudor, 36–37. CA MS I.15, fol. 104r-106r. Ford, Mary Tudor, 43. Death, Burial, and the Individual, 175. Ford, Mary Tudor, 39. Ibid., 39–43. Ibid., 45–46. BL Addit. 33748, fols. 29v-32v. Carlisle describes the details of the body’s preservation, down to her long hair’s still golden color (fol. 32v). Richardson notes that some of that hair was ghoulishly taken by souvenir hunters (WQ ), 266. WQ , 266. CA MS R.36, fol. 55v. For information on Fellows, see Walter Godfrey et al’s The College of Arms. The catalogue at Queen’s College, Oxford, where the third book is housed, notes that the book was originally created for the Bourchier family and by one of them given to Mary; the two best candidates for the giver are Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex, who was one of the principal mourners at Mary’s funeral service at Westminster Abbey, or John Bourchier, Lord Berners, Mary’s chamberlain. See MS 349 at http://www.queens.ox.ac.uk/library/ medieval-manuscripts/the-catalogue. I tip the balance toward Berners given that he was deputy of Calais from 1520–1533 and in that capacity, would be someone Mary would find useful in her frequent contacts with France (in fact, her last extant letter was to his successor, asking for a place for John Williams at Calais). Boro notes that Berners would have acted as both spy and defender of English interests, reporting all relevant news to Henry and Wolsey (Castell of Love, 5). Berners was also the translator of Froissart, as well as the romances Huon of Bordeaux and Castell of Love; his reputation for learning would make it appropriate to give a book as method of remembrance and his interest in English–French translation would have made Mary a natural patron to cultivate. For more on gift exchange, see Donawerth, “Women’s Poetry,” 3–6. “Your Humble Handmaid,” 461–462. For a description of the manuscript, see Avril and Reynaud, Les Manuscrits à Peintures, item 173. See Macfarlane’s “The Book of Hours.” All references to this text taken from this article. Marking the Hours, 67. Queen’s MS 349. At least seventeen more images are missing, cut out by later hands, notes the catalogue. One thief later repented and sent back his images. His note and the librarian’s comments are also preserved in the volume: “Repentence desires these may be put in their proper places in ye book from whens they were taken; Dublin, Nov, 5, 1727” and the response, “N.B. These Illuminations, taken out of this Book or some Other in Queens College Library, were sent back to Dr. Gibson by an Unknown Hand, his Conscience

9780230620308_08_not.indd 242

2/18/2011 3:55:03 PM

Notes to Pages 157–160

280.

281.

282. 283.

284. 285. 286.

287. 288.

243

pricking him. And so may conscience prick all those that have wronged the Library” (fol. 250r). Donawerth notes an important distinction between patronage and gift exchange—that the former seeks to “establish loyalty to a faction rather than more general social bonds” (“Women’s Poetry”), 8. Reading Families, 71–73. Mary’s other Book of Hours, the one from Margaret, may also have passed to her daughters. Macfarlane notes that the book eventually made its way to Leopold Ignatius, Archduke of Austria, but that the word “papa” (“pope”) was erased and that the feast of St. Thomas à Becket was similarly removed (and later re-added in a different hand), all in accordance with Henry’s abolishing the feast of that saint in 1538, so the book must have remained in England at least until 1538 (6). Queen’s MS 349 similarly removes references to the Pope and scratches out the image of St. Thomas à Becket (fol. 14v). Marking the Hours, 51. In Stripping of the Altars, Duffy contends that “given the development of the Book of Hours round the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, it would not be difficult to argue that the whole of the primer was in some sense a Marian prayer-book” (256). See Krug’s translation of the 1527 printed text in Cultures of Piety, 114. These may be found mixed in with the men’s suffrages from fols. 41r-57r. Duffy contends that the Bolton Hours, which also emphasized women saints, may indicate it belonged to the women of the family who commissioned it (Marking the Hours, 15–16). Reading Families, 73–74. For information on Wilgefortis superstitions in England, see Friesen’s The Female Crucifix, 59–62.

9780230620308_08_not.indd 243

2/18/2011 3:55:03 PM

9780230620308_08_not.indd 244

2/18/2011 3:55:04 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources Manuscripts Bibliothèque Nationale de France Dupuy MS 462 Français MSS 2932, 3002, 3014, 5014

Bodleian Library Ashmole MS 1116 Douce MS 198 Tanner MS 90 Wood MS F33

British Library Additional MSS 6113, 14840, 15221, 19398, 33748, 34208 Cotton MSS Caligula B.II, B.VI, D.VI, D.XI Galba B.III Julius A.III Titus B.I Vespasian B.II, C.XII, F.III, F.XIII Vitellius C.XI Egerton MS 985 Harley MSS 1757, 3462, 6986

College of Arms MS I.3 MS I.15 MS M6bis MS R.36

Morgan Pierpont Library Rulers of England Box 02, Henry VIII, no. 33a Letter from Mary to Margaret of Savoy

National Archives (UK) EE2/L2 Eye Borough Records SP 1 State Papers, Henry VIII: General Series SP E30 Exchequer: Treasury of the Receipt: Diplomatic Documents

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 245

2/18/2011 3:56:06 PM

246

Bibliography

Queen’s College, Oxford MS 349 Book of Hours, use of Sarum, in Latin

Printed Texts Bamforth, Stephen and Jean Dupèbe, eds. “Jacobus Sylvius’s Francisi Francorum Regis et Henrici Anglorum (Paris, 1520).” Renaissance Studies 5.1–2 (March/June 1991). Barillon, Jean. Journal de Jean Barrillon, 1515–1521. Vol. I. Ed. Pierre de Vaissière. Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1897. Baskervill, Charles Read, ed. Pierre Gringore’s Pageants for the Entry of Mary Tudor into Paris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Benson, Larry D, ed. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1987. Boccaccio, Giovanni. Famous Women. Trans. Virginia Brown. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Bonnardot, François. Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris. Vol. I Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1883. Bouchet, Jean. Epistres Morales et Familieres du Traverseur. Poitiers, 1545. Brant, Sebastian. Shyp of Folys. London, Wynkyn de Worde, 1509. de Brantôme, Pierre. Oeuvres Complètes de Pierre de Bourdeille seigneur de Brantôme. Vol. IX. Ed. Ludovic Lalanne. Paris: Mme. Vve. Renouard, 1876. de Bréquigny, Louis-Georges-Oudart-Feudrix. Lettres de Rois, Reines, et Autres Personnages. Vol. II. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1847. Brown, Cynthia, ed. Les entrées royales à Paris de Marie d’Angleterre et Claude de France. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2005. Brown, Rawdon, trans. Four years at the court of Henry VIII; selection of despatches written by the Venetian ambassador, Sebastian Giustinian, and addressed to the Signory of Venice, January 12th 1515, to July 26th 1519. 2 vols. London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1854. Byrne, Muriel St. Clare, ed. The Lisle Letters: An Abridgement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Camusat, Nicolas. Meslanges historiques . . . depuis l’an 1390 jusques à l’an 1580. Troyes, 1644. Carmeliano, Pietro. Hoc presenti libello . . . Honorifica gesta solemnes cerimonie et triumphi . . . Pro sponsalibus et matrimonio inter prefatum illustrissimum principem Karolum, et illustrissimam ac nobilissimam principem Dominam Mariam. London, 1508. Castiglione, Baldassare. ll Cortegiano del Conte Baldessar Castiglione. Ed. Carlo Baudi de Vesme. Firenze: Felice Le Monnier, 1854. Cavendish, George. The Life and Death of Thomas Wolsey. London: J.M. Dent, 1908. Champollion-Figeac, Jacques-Joseph, ed. Lettres de rois, reines et autres personages des cours de France et d’Angleterre. Vol. II. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1847. Chartier, Alain. Le quadrilogue invectif. Ed. Eugenie Droz. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1923. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Ad Familiares [Letters to Friends]. Vol. I. Trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2001. Cocheris, Hippolyte. Entrées de Marie D’Angleterre, Femme de Louis XII a Abbeville et a Paris. Lyons: Louis Perrin; Paris: A. Aubry, 1859. Crétin, Guillaume. Les poesies de Guillaume Crétin. Paris, 1723. Curnow, Maureen Cheney. “The Livre de la cité des dames of Christine de Pisan: A Critical Edition.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1975. Dewick, E.S., ed. Coronation Book of Charles V of France. London: Harrison and Sons, 1899.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 246

2/18/2011 3:56:07 PM

Bibliography

247

Dickens, A.G., ed. The Register or Chronicle of Butley Priory, Suffolk, 1510–1535. Winchester: Wykeham Press, 1951. Dickson, Arthur, ed. Valentine and Orson. London: EETS, 1937. Drayton, Michael. Englands Heroicall Epistles. London, 1597. Dymond, David, ed. Register of Thetford Priory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Ellis, Henry, ed. Original Letters Illustrative of English History. 1st ser. Vols. I, II; 2nd ser. Vol. I; 3rd ser. Vol. II. 1825–46. Reprint, New York: AMS, 1970. Fisher, John. Here after ensueth two fruytfull sermons, made compyled by the ryght Reverende father in god John Fyssher. London, 1532. Flenley, Ralph. Six Town Chronicles of England. Oxford: Clarendon, 1911. de Fleuranges, Robert. “Mémoires de M. de Fleuranges.” In Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France. Vol. 5. Eds. Joseph-François Michaud and Jean-Joseph-François Poujoulat 3–86. Paris: Editeur du commentaire analytique du Code civil, 1838. Ford, James, ed. “The Ballad of an English Knight.” In The Suffolk garland: or, A collection of poems, songs, tales, ballads, sonnets, and elegies, legendary and romantic, historical and descriptive, relative to that county; and illustrative of its scenery, places, biography, manners, habits and customs. 121–5. Ipswich: John Raw, 1818. Gairdner, James, ed. “A Narrative of the Reception of Philip King of Castile in England in 1506.” In Memorials of the Reign of Henry VII. 282–303. London: Longman, Brown, 1858. ———. “Spousells of Princess Mary.” In The Camden Miscellany. Vol. 9. New York: Johnson Reprints, 1895. Garnier, Joseph, ed. “Correspondance de la Mairie de Dijon.” In Analecta divionensia: Documents Inédits pour servir a L’Histoire de France. Vol I. 1–395. Dijon: J-E. Rabutot, 1868. Godefroy, Jean, ed. Lettres du roy Louis XII, et du cardinal George d’Amboise. Vol. IV. Brussels, 1712. Godwin, Francis. Annales of England Containing the Reigns of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixt, Queen Mary written in Latin by the Right Honorable and Right Reverend Father in God, Francis Lord Bishop of Hereford. Trans. Morgan Godwyn. London, 1630. Gower, John. Confessio Amantis. Ed. Russell Peck. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Green [née Wood], Mary Anne Everett, ed. Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies. Vol. I. London: Henry Colburn, 1846. Grove, Joseph. The History of the Life and Times of Cardinal Wolsey. Vol. II. London, 1743. Gurney, Daniel. “Extracts from the Household and Privy Accounts of the Lestranges of Hunstanton, from A.D. 1515 to A.D. 1578.” In Archaeologia, or the Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity Published by the Society of Antiquaries of London. Vol. 25, 411–569. London: J.B. Nicholas, 1834. Hall, Edward. Hall’s Chronicle Containing the History of England, during the reign of Henry the Fourth, and the Succeeding Monarch, to the End of the Reign of Henry the Eighth. London: J. Johnson, 1809. Reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1965. Hatt, Cecilia, ed. English Works of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester: Sermons and Other Writings 1520–1535. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Hawes, Stephen. The Comforte of Lovers. [London]: Wynkyn de Worde, [1515].

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 247

2/18/2011 3:56:07 PM

248

Bibliography

Herford, C. H., Percy and Evelyn Simpson, eds. Ben Jonson. Vol. X. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950. Historical Manuscripts Commission: The Manuscripts of the Corporations of Southhampton and King’s Lynn. London: HMSO, 1887. Historical Manuscript Commission: Report on the Manuscripts of Lord Middleton. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), 1911. Hoby, Thomas, trans. The Book of the Courtier. Ed. Virginia Cox. London : J.M. Dent, 1994. Holinshed, Raphael. Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Vol III. London, 1808. Reprint. New York: AMS Press, 1965. Homer. Iliad. Trans. Robert Fagles. London and New York: Penguin, 1998. Hughes, Paul L. and James F. Larkin, eds. Tudor Royal Proclamations. Vol. I. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1964. Hume, Martin A. Sharp, trans. The Chronicle of Henry VIII. London: George Bell, 1889. Jacqueton, Gilbert. La politique extérieure de Louise de Savoie. Paris: Emile Bouillon, 1892. Jerdan, William, ed. The Rutland Papers: Original Documents Illustrative of the Courts and Times of Henry VII and Henry VIII. London: Camden Society, 1842. Jones, Emrys, ed. The New Oxford Book of Sixteenth Century Verse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. The Justes of the Months of May and June. London, 1507. Kellner, Leon, ed. Caxton’s Blanchardyn and Eglantine. 1890. Reprint, London: Oxford University Press, for EETS, 1962. Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge, ed. A Survey of London by John Stow. Vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. Krug, Rebecca, trans. Fifteen Oes. In Cultures of Piety: Medieval English Devotional Literature in Translation, eds. Anne Clark Bartlett and Thomas H. Bestul. 107–17. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Laidlaw, J. C. The Poetical Works of Alain Chartier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Lancashire, Ian, ed. Two Tudor Interludes. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1980. Lee. S. L., ed. Duke Huon of Bordeaux. London: EETS, 1975. Leest, Jacques. “Réception Solennelle de Marie D’Angleterre a Boulogne.” In Recueil historique du Boulonnais. Vol. 3. Eds. Daniel Haignieré and Arthur de Rosny. 71–5. Boulogne-sur-mer: G. Hamain, 1899. Le Glay, André, ed. Négotiations diplomatiques entre la France et l’Autriche. Vol. II. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1845. Leland, John. De Rebus Brittanicis Collectanea. 6 vols. Ed. Thomas Hearne. 356–73. London: Benjamin White, 1774. Lemaire de Belges, Jean. Oeuvres de Jean Lemaire de Belges. Vol II. Ed. J. Stecher. Louvain: J Lefever, 1882. Longnon, Auguste, ed. Meliador, 3 vols. Paris: 1895. Reprint, New York: Société des Anciens Textes Français, Johnson, 1965. de Looze, Laurence, trans. La Prison Amoureuse. New York: Garland, 1994. McRae, Joan, ed. Alain Chartier: The Quarrel of the Belle dame sans mercy. New York and London: Routledge, 2004. Mumby, F.A. The Youth of Henry VIII. London: Constable, 1913. A newe enterlude drawen oute of the holy scripture of godly queene Hester. London: 1561.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 248

2/18/2011 3:56:07 PM

Bibliography

249

Nicolas, Nicholas Harris. Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York. London: William Pickering, 1830, 23. Nichols, Francis Morgan, ed. The Epistles of Erasmus. Vol. I. New York: Longmans, 1901. O’Malley, John, ed. The Collected Works of Erasmus. Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 1988. Owen, Hugh and John Blakeway, eds. A History of Shrewsbury. Vol. I. London: Harding, 1825. Palmer, Charles John, ed. A Booke of the Foundacion and Antiquitye of the Towne of Greate Yermouthe. Great Yarmouth: Charles Sloman, 1847. Palsgrave, John. Lesclaircissement de la langue francoyse. [London], 1530. Parussa, Gabriella, ed. Epistre Othea. Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1999. Paynell, Thomas, trans. The assaute and conquest of heven. London, 1529. ———. De contemptu mundi. London, [1532]. de Pizan, Christine. Book of the City of Ladies. Ed. Earl Jeffrey Richards. New York: Persea 1982, 1998. ———. The Epistle of Othea. Trans. Stephen Scrope. Ed. Curt Buhler. London: Oxford University of Press, 1970. The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne. Ed. Gordon Kipling. Oxford: Oxford University Press, for EETS, 1990. Rymer, Thomas. Foedera. Vols 5, 6.1, 6.2. 3rd ed. Ed. Roberto Sanderson. Hagae Comitis: Jeanne Neaulme, 1739–41. Saint- Gelais, Octavien, trans. Epitres d’Ovide traduites en français par Octavien de SaintGelais. Paris, 1503. Sanuto, Marino. I Diarii di Marino Sanuto. Vols. XIX, XXIX, LVI, LVII. Venice: A Spese Degli Editori, 1887–1902. de Savoie, Louise. “Journal de Louise de Savoye.” In Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France. Vol. 5. 87–94. Eds. Joseph-François Michaud and JeanJoseph-François Poujoulat. Paris: Editeur du commentaire analytique du Code civil, 1838. Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. London,1597. Société de l’histoire de l’art Français. Nouvelle Archives de l’Art Français. Paris: J. Baur, Libraire de la Société, 1872. The solempnitites & triumphes doon & made at the spousells and mariage of the Kyngs doughter the Ladye Marye to the Prynce of Castile Archeduke. London, 1509. Spisak, James. Caxton’s Malory. Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1983. Stevens, John, ed. Music and Poetry in the Early Tudor Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961. Stow, John. Annales of England. London, 1605. Taschereau, Jules-Antoine, ed. Revue rétrospective ou Bibliothèque historique. Vol. XI, 2nd ser. Paris, 1837. Turpyn, Richard. The Chronicle of Calais. Ed. John Gough Nichols. London: J.B. Nichols, 1846. Valence, Pierre. Introductions in Frensshe, for Henry ye yonge erle of Lyncoln. London [1528]. Vergil, Polydore. The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, A.D. 1485–1537. Camden Series LXXIV. Ed. Denys Hay. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1950. Vives, Juan Luis. The Instruction of a Christian Woman. Eds. Virginia Walcott Beauchamp et al. Urbana, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 249

2/18/2011 3:56:07 PM

250

Bibliography

Wells, Stanley and Gary Taylor, eds. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Wormald, Francis. “The Solemn Entry of Mary Tudor to Montreuil-sur-mer in 1514.” In Studies presented to Sir Hilary Jenkinson. Ed. J. Conway Davies. 471–9. London: Oxford University Press, 1957.

II. Calendars Calendar of Letters, Dispatches, and State Papers Relating to Negotiations between England and Spain. Eds. G. A. Bergenroth et al. 15 vols. London: HMSO, 1862–1954. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan. Ed. A. B. Hinds. London: HMSO, 1912. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and other Libraries in Northern Italy. Eds. R. Brown et al. 9 vols. London: HMSO, 1864–1940. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum, and elsewhere. Eds. J. S. Brewer et al. 22 vols. London: HMSO, 1862–1932. Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII. 2 vols. Ed. James Gairdner. London: Longman, 1861–3.

III. Secondary Sources Anglo, Sydney. Spectacle, Pageantry, and Early Tudor Policy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. ———. “Tudor Dynastic Symbols.” In Spectacle and Image in Renaissance Europe. Ed. André Lascombes. 193–209. New York and Leiden: Brill, 1993. Antenhofer, Christina. “Letters Across the Borders: Strategies of Communication in an Italian- German Renaissance Correspondence.” In Crabb and Couchman, Women’s Letters, 103–121. Avril, François Avril and Nicole Reynaud. Les Manuscrits à Peintures en France 1440– 1520. Paris: Flammarion, 1993. Backhouse, Janet. “Illuminated Manuscripts associated with Henry VII and Members of his Immediate Family.” In The Reign of Henry VIII: Proceedings of the 1993 Harlaxton Symposium. Ed. Benjamin Thompson. 174–87. Stamford and Lincolnshire: Paul Watkins, 1995. Barron, W. R. J. English Medieval Romance. London: Longman, 1987. Baumgartner, Frederic J. Louis XII. New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Beem, Charles. The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Bell, Susan Groag. The Lost Tapestries of the City of Ladies: Christine de Pizan’s Renaissance Legacy. Berkeley: UCalifornia Press, 2004. Bennett, H. S. English Books and Readers, 1475–1557. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Bevington, David. Tudor Drama and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Boro, Joyce, ed. The Castell of Love: A Critical Edition of Lord Berners’s Romance. Tempe, AZ: ACMRS, 2007. Bridge , J.C. A History of France from the Death of Louis XI. Vol. IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 250

2/18/2011 3:56:08 PM

Bibliography

251

Caraccioli, Charles. An Historical Account of Sturbridge, Bury. Cambridge: Fletcher and Hodson, 1773. Carley, James P. The Books of King Henry VIII and His Wives. London: The British Library, 2004. ———. The Libraries of Henry VIII. London: The British Library in conjunction with the British Academy, 2000. Chambers, E.K. The Medieval Stage. Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903. Chance, Jane. “Gender subversion and linguistic castration in Christine de Pizan.” In Violence against Women in Medieval Texts. Ed. Anna Roberts. 161–94. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998. Chapman, Hester. The Sisters of Henry VIII. Bath: Cedric Chivers, 1974. Chatterton, Georgiana. The Pyrenees: with excursions into Spain. Vol. 1. London: Saunders and Otley, 1843. Clopper, Lawrence. Drama, Play, and Game: English Festive Culture in the Medieval and Early Modern Period. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Coby, Patrick. Thomas Cromwell: Machiavellian Statecraft and the English Reformation. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2009. Couchman, Jane. “Resisting Henri IV: Catherine de Bourbon and her Brother.” In Miller and Yavneh, eds., Sibling Relations, 64–76. Crabb, Ann and Jane Couchman, eds. Women’s Letters Across Europe, 1400–1700: Form and Persuasion. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. Davis, Natalie Zemon. Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and their Tellers in SixteenthCentury France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987. Daybell, James. “Women’s Letters and Letter Writing in England, 1540–1603.” Shakespeare Studies 27 (1999): 161–87. ———. Women Letter-Writers in Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Dembowski, Peter. Jean Froissart and his Meliador: Context, Craft, and Sense. Lexington, KY: French Forum, 1983. Desmond, Marilynn and Pamela Sheingorn. Myth, Montage, & Visuality in Late Medieval Manuscript Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003. Dickens, Arthur. The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage, and Royalty, 1400–1800. New York: Greenwich, 1984. Dillon, Janette. “Powerful Obedience: Godly Queen Hester and Katherine of Aragon.” In Interludes and Early Modern Society: Studies in Gender, Power, and Theatricality. Eds. Peter Happé and Wim Hüsken. 117–40. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2007. Donavin, Georgiana. “Locating a Public Forum for the Personal Letter in Malory’s Morte Darthur.” Disputatio 1 (1996): 19–36. Donawerth, Jane. “Women’s Poetry and the Tudor- Stuart System of Gift Exchange.” In Women, Writing, and the Reproduction of Culture in Tudor and Stuart Britain, Eds. Mary E. Burke, Jane Donawerth, Linda L. Dove, and Karen Nelson. 3–18. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Doran, Susan. England and Europe in the Sixteenth Century. London: Macmillan, 1999; New York: St. Martins, 1999. Doran, Susan and David Starkey. Henry VIII, Man and Monarch. London: British Library, 2009. Published in conjunction with the exhibition “Henry VIII: Man and Monarch” shown at the British Library in London from April 23, 2004 through September 6, 2009. Dowling, Maria. Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, 1986.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 251

2/18/2011 3:56:08 PM

252

Bibliography

Duffy, Eamon. Marking the Hours: English People and their Prayers, 1240–1570. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006. ———. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400- c.1580. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Dumitrescu, Theodor. The Early Tudor court and International Musical Relations (Ashgate, 2007), 109. Elston, Timothy. “Transformation or Continuity? Sixteenth- Century Education and the Legacy of Catherine of Aragon, Mary I, and Juan Luis Vives.” In”High and Mighty Queens” of Early Modern England: Realities and Representations. Eds. Carole Levin, Debra Barrett- Graves, and Jo Eldridge Carney. 11–26. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Evans, Mark. “The Rediscovery of a Royal Manuscript.” In A Masterpiece Reconstructed: The Hours of Louis XII. Eds. Thomas Kren and Mark Evans. 81–90. J. Paul Getty Museum and The British Library, 2005. Published in conjunction with the exhibition “A Masterpiece Reconstructed: The Hours of Louis XII, held at the J. Paul Getty Museum from October 18, 2005 to January 8, 2006 and at the Victoria and Albert Museum, February 2 to May 1, 2006. Ferguson, Arthur. Utter Antiquity: perceptions of prehistory in Renaissance England. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993. Ferrante, Joan. “ ‘Licet longinquis regionibus corpore separati’: Letters as a Link in and to the Middle Ages.” Speculum 76 (2001): 881. Ford, Francis. Mary Tudor: A Retrospective Sketch. Bury St. Edmund’s: Barker, 1882. Fox, Alistair. Politics and Literature in the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. Frantzen, Allen J. Troilus and Criseyde: The Poem and the Frame. New York: Twayne, 1993. Friesen, Ilse. The Female Crucifix: Images of St. Wilgefortis from the Middle Ages. Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2001. Giry-Deloison, Charles. “England and France at Peace, 1475–1513.” In Contending Kingdoms: France and England, 1420–1700. Ed. Glenn Richardson. 43–60. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. ———. “ ‘Une haquenée . . . pour le porter bientost et plus doucement en enfer ou en paradis’: the French and Mary Tudor’s marriage to Louis XII in 1514.” In The English Experience in France c. 1450–1558. Ed. David Grummitt. 132–159. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Gittings, Claire. Death, Burial, and the Individual in Early Modern England. London: Routledge, 1984. Godfrey, Walter et al. The College of Arms, Queen Victoria Street, being the Sixteenth and Final Monograph of the London Survey Committee. London: London Survey Committee, 1963. Gordon, R.K. The Story of Troilus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978. de Grazia, Margreta. “What is a Work? What is a Document?” In W. Speed Hill, New Ways of Looking at Old Texts, 199–207. Green, Mary Anne Everett. Lives of the Princesses of England. Vol. V. London: Henry Colburn, 1854. Green, Richard Firth. “A Joust in Honour of the Queen of May, 1441.” N&Q 225.5 (October 1980): 386–9. Gunn, Steven. Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, c. 1484–1545. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 252

2/18/2011 3:56:09 PM

Bibliography

253

Gunn, Steven and Philip Lindley. “Charles Brandon’s Westhorpe: an Early Tudor Courtyard House in Suffolk.” Archeological Journal 145 (1988): 272–89. Guy, John. Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Hampton, Timothy. Fictions of Embassy: Literature and Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2009. Harris, Barbara. English Aristocratic Women, 1450–1550: Writing and Family, Property and Careers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. “Power, Profit, and Passion: Mary Tudor, Charles Brandon, and the Arranged Marriage in Early Tudor England.” Feminist Studies 15.1 (Spring 1989): 59–88. Hayward, Maria. Rich Apparel: Clothing and the Law in Henry VIII’s England. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009. Hazard, Mary. Elizabethan Silent Language. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. Hill, W. Speed, ed. New Ways of Looking at Old Texts: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society, 1985–1991. Binghamton, NY: Renaissance English Text Society, 1993. Hindman, Sandra. Christine de Pizan’s Epistre Othea: Painting and Politics at the Court of Charles VI. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1986. Howard, Maurice. “Power and the Early-Tudor Courtier’s House.” History Today 37.5 (1987): 44–50. Ives, Eric. “Crime, Sanctuary, and Royal Authority under Henry VIII: The Exemplary Sufferings of the Savage Family.” In On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thorne. Eds. Morris Arnold et al. 296–320. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981. ———. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. James, Susan E. The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485–1603. Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009. Jardine, Lisa. Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Jones, Michael and Malcolm Underwood. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Kaeuper, Richard. “The societal role of chivalry in romance: northwestern Europe.” In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. Ed. Roberta Krueger. 97–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Kelly, Douglas. Medieval French Romance. New York: Twayne, 1993. Kipling, Gordon. “Henry VII and the Origins of Tudor Patronage.” In Patronage and the Renaissance. Eds. Guy Fitch Lytle and Stephen Orgel. 117–164. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. ———. “Justes of May and June.” N&Q 229.2 ( June 1984): 158–162. ———. The Triumph of Honour: Burgundian Origins of the English Renaissance. The Hague: Leiden University Press, 1977. Klein, Lisa. “Your Humble Handmaid: Elizabethan Gifts of Needlework.” Renaissance Quarterly 50 (1997): 459–493. Knecht, R.J. Renaissance Warrior and Patron: the Reign of Francis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Knowles, David. The Religious Orders in England. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Krug, Rebecca. Reading Families: Women’s Literate Practice in Late Medieval England. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2002.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 253

2/18/2011 3:56:09 PM

254

Bibliography

LaGuardia, David. Intertextual Masculinity in Frence Renaissance Literature: Rabelais, Brantôme, and the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. LeBlanc, Yvonne. “Queen Anne in the Lonely, Tear- Soaked Bed of Penelope: Rewriting the Heroides in Sixteenth- Century France.” Disputatio 1 (1996): 71–88. Lerer, Seth. Courtly Letters in the Age of Henry VIII: Literary Culture and the Arts of Deceit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Loades, David. “Mary. (1496–1533).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Sept. 2004, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18251 (accessed June 27, 2008). Louandre, François- César. Histoire d’Abbeville et du comté de Ponthieu jusqu’en 1789. Vol. II. 3rd ed. Abbeville: Auguste Alexandre, 1844. Macfarlane, Leslie. “The Book of Hours of James IV and Margaret Tudor.” The Innes Review XI (1960): 3–21. Marotti, Arthur. Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Matarasso, Pauline. Queen’s Mate: Three Women of Power in France on the Eve of the Renaissance. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Mattingly, Garrett. Catherine of Aragon. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1941. McCartney, Elizabeth. “Ceremonies and Privileges of Office: Queenship in Late Medieval France.” In Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women. Eds. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth Maclean 178–220. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Meale, Carol. “ ‘Gode men, Wiues maydnes and alle men’: Romance and Its Audiences,” In Readings in Medieval English Romance. Ed. Carol Meale. 209–25. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1994. Michalove, Sharon. “Equal in Opportunity? The Education of Aristocratic Women 1450–1550.” In Women’s Education in Early Modern Europe, A History 1500–1800. Ed. Barbara J. Whitehead. 47–74. New York: Garland, 1999. Miller, Naomi and Naomi Yavneh, eds. Sibling Relations and Gender in the Early Modern World. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Mitton, Geraldine. Maps of Old London. London: Adam and Charles Black: 1908. Morrison, Susan Signe. Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England: Private Piety as Public Performance. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Muir, Edward. Ritual in Early Modern Europe. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Norris, Herbert. Tudor Costume and Fashion. London: 1938. Reprint. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1997. Omont, Henri. “Les Manuscrits Français des Rois D’Angleterre au Chateau de Richmond.” In Études romanes dediées à Gaston Paris. 1–13. Paris: Emile Bouillon, 1891. Osherow, Michele. “Crafting Queens: Early Modern Readings of Esther.” In Queens and Power in Medieval and Early Modern England. Eds. Carole Levin and Robert Bucholz. 141–86. University of Nebraska Press, 2009. Parsons, John Carmi. “Introduction: Family, Sex, and Power: The Rhythms of Medieval Queenship.” In Medieval Queenship. 1–11. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997. Patterson, Annabel. Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Pearson, Meg Forbes. “Herculean Efforts: Spectacle as Rebellion” in “Spectacle in Early Modern English Drama.” PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, 2006.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 254

2/18/2011 3:56:09 PM

Bibliography

255

Perry, Maria. The Sisters of Henry VIII: The Tumultuous Lives of Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France. Boulder, CO: Da Capo Press, 1998. Peterson, Kaara. “Re-Anatomizing Melancholy: Burton and the Logic of Humoralism.” In Textual Healing: Essays on Medieval and Early Modern Medicine. Ed. Elizabeth Lane Furdell. 139–68. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Philips, Kim. Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, 1270–1540. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2003. Plowden, Alison. Lady Jane Grey and the House of Suffolk. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985. Powell, Susan “The Lady Margaret Beaufort and her Books.” The Library 6th ser., 20.3 (September 1998): 197–240. Pryor, Felix. Elizabeth I: Her Life in Letters. London: British Library, 2003. Richardson, Glenn. “Eternal Peace, Occasional War: Anglo-French Relations under Henry VIII.” In Tudor England and Its Neighbors. Eds. Susan Doran and Glenn Richardson. 44–73. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. ———. “The Field of Cloth of Gold.” Paper, Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, St. Louis, MS, October 25, 2008. ———. “An Oration to Mary Tudor, Queen of France, 1514.” Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, Minneapolis, October, 2007. ———. Renaissance Monarchy: the reigns of Henry VIII, Francis I, and Charles V. London and New York: Hodder Arnold, 2002. Richardson, Walter. Mary Tudor, the White Queen. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1970. Richter Sherman, Claire. “Taking a Second Look: Observations on the Iconography of a French Queen, Jeanne de Bourbon (1338–1378).” In Feminism and Art History; Questioning the Litany. Eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard 101–17. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982. Riddy, Felicity. “Middle English Romance: family, marriage, intimacy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. Ed. Roberta Krueger. 235–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Rushton, Alan. Royal Maladies: Inherited Diseases in the Royal Houses of Europe. Victoria: Trafford, 2008. Russell, Joycelyne. The Field of Cloth of Gold: Men and Manners in 1520. London: Routledge, 1969. Scarisbrick, J.J. Henry VIII. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. Schmolke-Hasselmann, Beate. The Evolution of Arthurian Romance: The Verse Tradition from Chretien to Froissart. Trans. Margaret and Roger Middleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Schutte, Anne Jacobson, Thomas Kuehn, and Silvana Seidel Menchi, eds. Time, Space, and Women’s Lives in Early Modern Europe. Kirksville, MS: Truman State University Press, 2001. Schneider, Gary. The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in Early Modern England, 1500-1700. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 2005. Sharpe, Kevin. Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth- century England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Shoberl, Frederic. Suffolk, or Original Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and Descriptive, of that County. London: J. Harris, 1818. Shrewsbury, J.F.D. “Henry VIII: a Medical Study.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 7 (1952): 141–185.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 255

2/18/2011 3:56:10 PM

256

Bibliography

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. New York: Harper Collins, 2004. Starobinski, Jean. Largesse. Trans. Jane Marie Todd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Steen, Sara Jayne. “Behind the Arras: Editing Renaissance Women’s Letters” In W. Speed Hill, New Ways of Looking at Old Texts, 229–239. ———. “How Subject to Interpretation’: Lady Arbella Stuart and the Reading of Illness.” In Early Modern Women’s Letter-Writing, 1450–1700. Ed. James Daybell. 109–26. New York: Palgrave, 2001. ———. The Letters of Lady Arbella Stuart. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Stein, Gabriele. John Palsgrave as Renaissance Linguist. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Stewart, Alan and Heather Wolfe, eds. Letterwriting in Renaissance England. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2004. Published in conjunction with the exhibition “Letterwriting in Renaissance England” shown at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, from November 18, 2004 through April 2, 2005. Streitberger, W.R. Court Revels: 1485–1559. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press, 1994. Strickland, Agnes. Lives of the Queens of England. Vol. IV. Philadelphia: Blanchard and Lea, 1852. Summit, Jennifer. Lost Property: The Woman Writer and English Literary History, 1380– 1589. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Sutton, Anne. The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods, and People, 1130–1578. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. Travitsky, Betty. The Paradise of Women: Writings by Englishwomen of the Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989. Walker, Greg. Persuasive Fictions: Faction, Faith and Political Culture in the Reign of Henry VIII. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1996. ———. Plays of Persuasion: Drama and Politics at the Court of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Warnicke, Retha. The Marrying of Anne of Cleves: Royal Protocal in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ———. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Williams, Deanna. The French Fetish from Chaucer to Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Wodderspoon, John. Historic Sites and Other Remarkable and Interesting Places in the County of Suffolk. London: Longman, 1839. Yungblut, Laura. Strangers Settled Here Amongst Us: Policies, Perceptions, and the Presence of Aliens in Elizabethan England. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

9780230620308_09_bib.indd 256

2/18/2011 3:56:10 PM

INDEX

Abbeville, 58, 62, 65–6, 69–72, 73, 91, 167, 168, 169, 170 actors. See players Albany, John Stuart, Duke, 79, 89, 142–3, 144 Albret, Marie d’, Countess of Nevers, 86, 93 alliances, matrimonial, 2, 10–14, 26–30, 38, 44–7, 50–4, 56–7, 58, 60–1, 62, 65–71, 87–9, 91, 92, 95, 116–17, 128–30, 148, 157 Almazan, Miguel, 45 Ambroise, Master, 138, 140, 194–5 Anglo, Sydney, 9, 18, 232n74, 233n75 Angoulême, Francis d’. See Francis I, King of France Angoulême, Marguerite d’. See Marguerite, Duchess of Alençon Anne of Brittany, Queen of France, 50, 86, 206n102, 220n173 Apollonius of Tyre, 15, 21 Arthur, Prince of Wales, 8–9, 10, 20, 27, 96 Arthurian legend, 8, 10, 17, 21, 37–40, 68, 75, 84, 208n137 Aumont, Madame d’, 74, 93 Austin Canons, 126 Backhouse, Janet, 5, 202n19 Badoer, Andrea, 53–4, 55, 56, 119–20 Banaster, Sir Humphrey, 135, 136, 189 banquets. See under spectacle Bapaumes, Robert de, 127 Barker, Sir Christopher, 234n108 Barrillon, Jean, 93 Baskervill, Charles Read, 80 Basset, Mary, 23–4 Bath Place, 121, 134 battles Flodden, 49, 142 Pavia, 120, 145, 146

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 257

Ravenna, 67 the Spurs, 49, 53, 87 bear-baiting, 25, 124 Beaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond, 21–2, 24, 26, 36, 73, 75, 123, 138, 158, 197n6, 200n59 Beem, Charles, 97 Bell, Susan Groag, 206n102 Berghes, Johannes de, Lord, 28–9 Berners, Humphrey, 123 Berners, Lord. See Bourchier, John Bevington, David, 142 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 21, 22, 33–4, 59 Decameron, 21 De mulieribus claris, 21, 33–4 Il Filostrato, 59 Bohier, Sir Thomas, 55, 60, 77 Boleyn, Lady Anne, 2, 15, 72, 126, 129, 150–3, 233n89 Boleyn, Lady Elizabeth, 135 Boleyn, Lord Thomas, 219n158 Bonnivet, Guillaume Gouffier de, Grand Admiral of France, 85, 129, 133, 146 books. See individual works listed under author’s name ownership, 5, 21–3, 152 see also under Mary, Queen of France Books of Hours, 21, 22, 152, 156–60, 197n6 Bouchet, Jean, 89, 96–7 Boulogne, 65, 66–7, 68, 88, 125 Bourbon, Charles III, Duke, 132, 133 Bourchier, Henry, Earl of Essex, 242n273 Bourchier, John, Lord Berners, 72, 123, 156–7, 215n96, 242n273 Bourdichon, Jean, 152, 156 Brandon, Anne, Lady Powis, 123

2/18/2011 3:57:44 PM

258

Index

Brandon, Charles, Duke of Suffolk, 31, 51, 54, 86 ambassador to France, 71, 76–7, 78, 79, 85, 95–6, 104, 111 children, 2, 116, 123, 134–6, 150 debts/income, 104, 115, 120–2, 128, 145–7 letters, 3–4, 95–6, 104, 105–8, 111 life with Mary, 122–8, 147, 150–4, 155–6, 157 marriage to Mary, 1–4, 13, 91, 100–9, 112–17, 119–20, 173–6, 179–84 relationship with Henry, 4, 102, 104, 121, 126, 127, 134–5, 150–3 spectacle, participation in, 2, 8, 10, 38, 84–5, 117, 119–20, 124–8, 133, 134–5 Brandon, Eleanor, Countess of Cumberland, 2, 135–6, 154–6, 157 Brandon, Frances, Marchioness of Dorset, 2, 135–6, 144, 153, 154–6, 157 Brandon, Henry, (first son of Mary and Charles), 116, 134–6, 229n135 Brandon, Henry, (second son of Mary and Charles), Earl of Lincoln, 2, 116, 135–6, 137, 150, 154–6 Brandon, Mary, Lady Monteagle, 123, 230n24 Brandon, Mary Tudor. See Mary, Queen of France, Duchess of Suffolk Brant, Sebastian, 22, 75 The Ship of Fools, 22, 75 Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille, 94 Breuil, May de, 86 Brinon, Jean, 147 Brion, Philippe de Chabot, Seigneur, 146 Brooke, George, Lord Cobham, 123 Browne, Anne, 240n232 Buckingham, Edward Stafford, Duke, 133, 150 Burgavenny, Lord George Neville, 135 Bury Fair, 124–5 Bury St. Edmunds, 126, 155–6 Butley Abbey, 125–6, 150–1, 185, 234n116 Caceres, Francisca de, 45 Calais, 27, 28, 49, 50, 61, 65, 112, 113, 114, 139, 152–3, 182–4 Campeggio, Lorenzo, Cardinal, 128, 239n223 Capell, Sir Giles, 84

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 258

Capello, Carlo, 152, 154 Capello, Vincenzo, 27 Carley, James, 5, 202n21 Carmeliano, Pietro, 11, 29 Spousells, 29–30 Caroz, Luis, 45 Carracciolo, Marino, 55 Castiglione, Baldassare, 23–4, 25 Il Cortegiano (The Book of the Courtier), 23–4 Castir, Kateryna de, 45 Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England, 37, 46, 49, 52, 58, 70, 74, 87, 104, 115, 116, 117, 119, 126, 127–33, 134, 142, 143–4 divorce from Henry, 116, 148–53 letters, 10–12 as Princess of Wales, 8–9, 19, 21, 25–6, 27, 28, 45, 73, 96, 102 relationship with Mary, 11–13, 25, 64, 96, 117, 127–9, 132, 134, 135, 144, 148–50, 153, 185, 216n104 Cavalcanty, Jehan, 62 Caxton, William, 8, 36, 39, 75, 158 Cerf, Jehan de, 45 Cerisay, Nicholas de, 78 Chambyr, Elizabeth, 136 Chance, Jane, 206n102 “Chancon faicte en lhonneur De madame marie,” 28 Chapman, Hester, 197n5 Chapuys, Eustace, 151–3, 154 Charlemagne, 40, 152, 155 Charles, Prince of Castile, later Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 19, 32, 49–52, 55–7, 62, 96, 107, 117, 127, 129, 130, 133, 145, 151, 152, 163–4, 197n6 letters from, 45 marriage to Mary, 2, 11, 12, 26, 27–30, 44–7 Charles III, Duke of Savoy, 95, 102 Chartier, Alain, 5, 21, 31–2, 34 La belle dame sans mercy, 34 L’excusation de Maistre Alain, 34 L’hopital d’amours, 34 Lai de paix, 31 Quadrilogue invectif, 31–2 Traité de l’Esperance, 31

2/18/2011 3:57:45 PM

Index Chaucer, Geoffrey, 4, 5, 21, 22, 31, 35, 41, 43, 59–61, 74–5, 98 Canterbury Tales, 22 Man of Law’s Tale, 74–5 Melibee, 21 Troilus and Criseyde, 35, 43, 59–61, 98–9 Cheyney, Sir Thomas, 84 Chieregato, Francesco, 9, 128, 143 chivalric romance. See romances chivalry, enacting, 3–4, 8–10, 13–14, 17–19, 21–2, 27–30, 36–44, 65–70, 78–86, 96–100, 124–34, 147–8 christenings, 116, 134–5, 152 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 6 Ad Familiares, 6 Claude, Queen of France, 30, 53, 70, 74, 79, 84, 86, 104, 106, 109, 119, 131–3 Clerk, John, 145 Clifford, Eleanor, Countess of Cumberland. See Brandon, Eleanor Clifford, Lady Florence, 157 Clifford, Lord Henry, Earl of Cumberland, 155 Clopper, Lawrence, 124 clothing. See under fashion Clotilde, Queen of Burgundy, 33, 147 Cluny, Hôtel de, 93, 94, 102, 104, 105, 112 Cocheris, Hippolyte, 217n127 Colonne, Guido delle, 21 History of the Destruction of Troy, 21 Compton, Sir William, 103 Confrères de la Passion, 80 see also players Cornish, William, 133, 214n66 Coronation Book, 78 coronations. See under spectacle Couchman, Jane, 7, 222n238, 224n39 Crabb, Ann, 7 Crétin, Guillaume, 53, 96–7 Cromwell, Thomas, 137, 145, 152, 154 Dacres, Lord Thomas, 135 Dandolo, Marco, 89, 92–3 Dannot, Gerard, 76 Darcy, Lord Thomas, 87, 168–9 Davis, Natalie Zemon, 3 Daybell, James, 7, 113, 139 de Grazia, Margreta, 3 Denton, James, 72, 110, 146, 176, 177, 187

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 259

259

de Pizan, Christine. See Pizan, Christine de Descars, Francis, 87–8, 168–70 Desmond, Marilynn, 202–3n34 Desnoues, Richard, 110 D’Este, Isabella. See Este, Isabella d’ Dillon, Janette, 142 Dinteville, Jean de, Bailly of Troyes, 154 divorce of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, 116, 148–53 Docwra, Sir Thomas, 55, 78 Donawerth, Jane, 231n47, 242n274 Donnington Castle, 122 Doran, Susan, 207n115 Dorset, Marquis of. See Grey, Thomas, Marquis of Dorset Douglas, Archibald, Earl of Angus, 142 Douglas, Lady Margaret, 134, 212n31 Dover, 28, 64, 113, 115 Dowling, Maria, 201n9, 235n129 Drayton, Michael, 1–2, 3, 6, 7, 15 Englands Heroicall Epistles, 1–2, 3, 7, 15 Duffy, Eamon, 239n230, 243n283 Duprat, Anthoine, 223n12 Duwes, Giles, 21, 24 Edward IV, King of England, 18, 134, 155 Edward VI, King of England, 136, 206n102 Egmont, Charles van, Duke of Gueldres, 47 Eleanor of Castile, 12, 26 Elizabeth, Princess, later Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 23, 134, 206n102 Elizabeth of York, Queen of England, 18, 19–21, 24, 155, 158, 163, 200n57 Ellis, Henry, 198n12, 240n243 Elston, Timothy, 138 Eltham Palace, 20, 37, 197n6 Empson, Sir Thomas, 141 entry spectacles. See under spectacle epistolary conventions. See letters Erasmus, Desiderius, 6, 20, 44, 137–8, 151, 197n6 De conscribendis epistolis, 6 De contemptu mundi, 137–8, 151 Espinoy, Guillaume de l’, 67 Este, Isabella d’, Marchioness of Mantua, 7, 9, 128 Esther, Queen, 68, 78, 86, 88, 141–2

2/18/2011 3:57:45 PM

260

Index

fashion clothing, 24, 29, 44, 45–6, 52, 58–9, 69, 83, 131, 133, 135, 160 hairstyles, 64, 69, 70 jewelry, 14, 30, 52, 54, 58, 63, 64, 65, 70, 72, 78, 79, 94, 104, 105–7, 110–11, 112, 114–15, 121, 122, 131, 133, 144–5, 151 Favri, Nicolò di, 55, 56, 58 Fellows, William, 156 Ferdinand of Aragon, King of Spain, 9, 10–12, 25, 26, 27, 29–30, 45, 46, 47, 49–50, 53, 55, 56, 73, 85, 109, 223n21 Ferrante, Joan, 198n15 Field of Cloth of Gold, 15, 119, 129–36, 145 film/television versions The Sword and the Rose, 2 The Tudors, 2 When Knighthood was in Flower, 2 Firth-Green, Richard, 201n5 Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, 119, 135 Fitzroy, Henry, Duke of Richmond, 116, 136 Fleet Prison, 88, 171–2 Fleuranges, Robert de la Marck, 56, 69, 70, 73–4, 93–4, 232n74 Fosse-aux-Ballades, 69–70 Fox, Alistair, 41–3 Framery, Laurens, 67 Francis I, King of France, 2, 91, 94, 102, 104, 109, 122, 127, 129, 142, 152, 154 dauphin, 50, 53, 56, 69, 73–4, 79, 84–5, 86, 87–8 Field of Cloth of Gold, 119, 129–33, 145 Pavia, aftermath of, 120, 145–8 relationship with Mary, 3–4, 13, 56, 69, 79, 84–5, 86, 87–8, 93–6, 99–100, 102–7, 110–12, 115, 120, 132, 135, 138–40, 144–8, 154–5, 160, 169, 175–6, 187–8, 189 Froissart, Jean, 4–5, 10, 22, 38, 242n273 Chronicles, 22 La prison amoureuse, 207n127 Meliador, 10, 38–9 Fuensalida, Gutiérre Gómez de, 10, 12 Fulwood, William, 139 funerals. See under spectacle

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 260

Garnyshe, Sir Christopher, 65 Gattinare, Mercurin de, 95, 104 Gertrude, Marchioness of Exeter, 153 Gibson, Richard, 38 Giry-Deloison, Charles, 67, 74, 81, 210–11n10, 212n45, 216n114 Gittings, Claire, 155 Giustinian, Marin, 154 Giustinian, Sebastian, 94, 109, 119–20, 128, 134, 135, 145 Glemham, Sir John, 126 Godly Queen Hester, 141–2 Godwin, Francis, 53 Golde, John, 139 Gonzaga, Federico, Marquis of Mantua, 130 Gower, John, 15, 22, 41, 200n65 Confessio Amantis, 15, 22 Gravelines, 129, 130, 234n116 Great Yarmouth, 125 Green, Mary Ann Everett (Wood), 197nn5–6, 198n12, 201n11, 201n18, 204n73, 219n154, 224n32, 225n59, 226n83, 240–1n243 Greenwich, 27, 28, 37, 45, 57, 115, 127, 128, 150, 164 Grey, Frances, Marchioness of Dorset. See Brandon, Frances Grey, Henry, Marquis of Dorset (1530), 153, 155 Grey, Lady Anne, née Jerningham, 123, 135, 230n25 Grey, Lady Elizabeth, 115, 123, 135 Grey, Lady Jane, 23, 136, 206n102 Grey, Lord Edward, 135 Grey, Thomas, Marquis of Dorset (1501), 25, 64, 77, 78, 79, 84–5, 123, 128, 133 Gringore, Pierre, 49–51, 79–83 Guildford, Lady Jane, 13, 72–8, 98, 146, 167–8 Guildford, Sir Henry, 84 Guise, Charles de Rohan, Count, 70 Gunn, Steven, 85, 121–2, 230n23, 235n127, 238n198 Guy, John, 203n58 hairstyles. See under fashion Hall, Edward, 8, 24, 37, 47, 56, 63, 64, 65, 66, 78, 84–6, 105, 117, 126, 128, 136, 143, 151

2/18/2011 3:57:45 PM

Index Hall, Francis, 146, 187 Hampton, George, 141, 146–7, 186 Hampton, Timothy, 87 Harris, Barbara, 7, 20–1, 24, 197n5, 212n31, 223n5 Hawes, Stephen, 41–4, 98 The Comforte of Lovers, 41–4, 98 Hayward, Maria, 115 Hazard, Mary, 57 Henry VII, King of England, 2, 5, 8, 9–12, 18, 19, 21, 25–30, 36, 41, 42, 44, 49, 66, 73, 96, 156 Henry VIII, King of England, 2, 6, 11, 12, 18, 19–21, 24, 25, 30, 31, 35, 36–8, 44–7, 49–51, 71, 79, 85, 119, 120–1 books, 5, 21–2, 156 divorce, 148–53 heirs, 116, 134–6 letters, 52–3, 87, 94, 98, 105, 109 relationship with Mary, 2, 3–4, 6–7, 13–15, 37–8, 51–4, 62–4, 75–6, 87–9, 91–2, 94–117, 121–2, 123, 124, 126–9, 133–6, 143–6, 148–56, 167–86, 194–5 spectacle, participation in, 57–8, 62–3, 66, 84, 126–35, 155 Hercules, 21, 22, 63, 122, 133, 135 Heroides. See under Ovid Hindman, Sandra, 202–3n34 Holbein, Hans, 241n259 Holinshed, Raphael, 93, 232n74 Holt, John, 20 Holy League, 47, 49, 67 Hone, William, 20 Howard, Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, 64, 151, 153 Howard, Sir Edmund, 84 Howard, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, 51, 64, 76, 103, 108, 123, 128, 135, 143, 151, 152, 154 Husee, John, 136 Hussey, Lady Anne, 153 Imitation of Christ, 22 Isabella, Queen of Naples, 109–10, 142 Isabella of Castile, Queen of Spain, 8–11, 25, 73 Jacques, Duke of Luxembourg, 55, 127 James IV, King of Scotland, 9, 19, 20, 27, 50, 53, 142, 156

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 261

261

Jardine, Lisa, 6 Jerningham, Anne. See Grey, Lady Anne Jerome, 6 jewelry. See under fashion John II, King of Portugal, 96 Jones, Michael, 201n15, 206n111, 220n176 jousts. See under spectacle Juana, Queen of Castile, Archduchess of Burgundy, 11, 12, 25–6, 27 Julius II, Pope, 47, 49 “Justes of the Months of May and June,” 17–19, 27 Kaeuper, Richard, 36 Katherine, Countess of Devon, 134–5 Kennington, 17, 27 King’s Lynn, 125 Kipling, Gordon, 5, 8, 18, 201n5, 202n19, 202n22, 202n23, 207n115 Klein, Lisa, 156, 157 Knight, Vincent, 88, 150, 171–2 Krug, Rebecca, 158, 201n18, 202n26 Laidlaw, J.C., 205n91 Lancashire, Ian, 231n40 Lando, Piero, 102 Langley, Bonaventure, 179, 226n67 Leest, Jacques, Abbé de Saint-Vulmer, 66–7 Legenda Sanctorum, 22 Leland, John, 199n34 Lemaire de Belges, Jean, 5, 31, 32–3 Epistres de l’amant vert, 5, 31 Les illustrations de Gaule et singularitez de Troye, 31, 32–3 Leo X, Pope, 50, 55, 57, 89, 197n6 Lerer, Seth, 6, 98, 209n150, 214n66, 227n100 Lestrange, Sir Thomas, 125 letters, conventions of absence v. presence, 6–7, 35, 39, 60, 98 collaboration, 4, 106, 113–15 connection, 59–61, 87, 97–9, 149, 153 fictional, 5–6, 22–3, 34–6, 59–61, 74–5, 96–7, 98–9 hand, 35, 60–1, 100, 104–5, 106, 111 length, 59–61 politics, use in, 7–8, 22–3, 35, 45–7, 61, 87–9 public v. private, 6–8, 35, 61, 109, 113–15

2/18/2011 3:57:46 PM

262

Index

letters, conventions of—Continued reliability, 35, 74–6 rhetorical fashioning, 3–5, 35, 39–41, 45–7, 59–61, 160–1 salutations/signatures, 6–7, 19, 97–8, 138–40, 149–50 theatricality, 6–7, 60–1, 109 women’s voices, 5–6, 18–19, 22–3, 34–5, 39–41, 96–7 letters, individual. See under sender’s name Levissey, John, 123–4 Lincoln, John, 143 Lippomano, Vetor, 55, 116 Lisle, Lady Honor, 23 Loades, David, 73, 198n9 Longueville, Louis d’Orleans, Duke, 50–2, 55, 56–9, 60, 62, 72, 77, 79, 81, 87, 89, 165–6, 169 Lorraine, Antoine, Duke, 95, 132 Louis XII, King of France, 1, 26, 30, 91, 94, 109, 122, 136, 148 health, 54, 56, 71, 73, 85, 89, 92–3, 95, 113 letters, 60–1, 87 marriage to Mary, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 30, 31, 49–61, 64, 69–74, 76–7, 79–89, 92–3, 94, 96–7, 100, 101, 104–6, 109, 111, 113–14, 119, 129, 131, 133, 142, 144, 145, 147, 152, 156, 160, 164–7, 169, 170, 182–4 Louise of Savoy, 4, 7, 56, 73–4, 79, 84, 94, 104, 106, 109, 112, 127, 145–8, 187, 188 Lydgate, John, 5, 31, 41 Malory, Sir Thomas, 4, 8, 10, 39–41, 75 Morte d’Arthur, 8, 10, 39–41, 75 Manners, Richard, 123 Manship, Henry, 125 Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, 153 Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, 28 Margaret, Queen of Scotland, 9, 19, 20, 27, 55, 116, 120, 127, 134, 136, 142–4, 149, 156–7, 185, 197n4 Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy, 12, 26, 28, 30, 32–3, 44–7, 50, 51, 55–6, 94–5, 104, 115–16, 123, 145, 163–4, 206n102 Marguerite, Duchess of Alençon, (later Queen of Navarre), 7, 12, 30, 56, 79, 84, 96, 233n93

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 262

Maroton, Louis, 115–16 Marotti, Arthur, 3 marriage of Mary and Louis XII. See Louis XII; Mary; proxy marriages motives: Henry, 52–4; Louis, 52–4; Mary, 53–4 reactions, international, 54–7 Mary, Princess, later Mary I, Queen of England, 23, 116, 128–9, 134–6, 185 Mary, Queen of France, Duchess of Suffolk birth, 2 books: available to, 4–5, 21–3, 30–6, 38–44, 137–8; owned, 156–60 children, 2, 116, 134–6, 137, 154–7 chivalric romance, 17–19, 21–2, 29–30, 36–44, 100, 102–3, 125, 128, 129 clothing. See under fashion coronation, 14, 78–9, 86, 88, 89, 142 debts, 114–15, 120–2 diplomacy, role in, 26, 29–30, 87–9, 116–17, 126–34, 144–8 dowager queen, 91–4, 119–20, 122, 125, 133–4, 141, 143, 148, 151, 153, 156, 157, 160 dower rights, 94–5, 106, 110–11, 114–15, 121–2, 128, 144–8, 154 dowry/goods, 28, 44, 52, 62–4, 117 education, 17–47: courtly arts, 23–7, 36–44; formal, 19–23; French, 21, 30–1; household 24–5; Latin, 21; letters, 4–6, 18–19, 34–6, 38–41; queenship, 31–4, 38–44; religious, 20–1 fictional portrayals, 1–3, 91, 96–7, 119–20, 160 funeral, 155–6 health, 99, 153–4 Henry’s divorce, 148–53 intercessor, 62, 87–8, 109–10, 141–4 letters from, 3–4, 45–7, 59–61, 73–6, 87–8, 91–2, 95–101, 104–15, 123, 136–41, 142, 146–50, 153–4, 163–96 letters to, 45, 95, 102, 105, 109–10, 142–3 life with Brandon, 122–8, 147, 150–4, 155–6, 157 marriages: to Charles Brandon, 2, 13, 91–2, 96–109, 110–17, 119–20; to Charles of Castile, 2, 27–30, 44–7,

2/18/2011 3:57:46 PM

Index 49–52; to Louis XII, 2, 50–61, 62–73, 76–89, 92–3 negotiations with Henry, 4, 54, 91–2, 97–101, 103–9, 111–15, 120–2 patronage, 41–4, 62, 65, 78, 110, 136–41 pregnancy/childbirth, 128, 134–6, 144 queenship, 3, 8, 10, 13–15, 19, 44–7, 50–161 passim relationship with Francis I, 73, 93–6, 99–100, 102–3, 104, 110–12, 132, 135, 138, 144–8, 154 religion, 20–1, 125–6, 151–2, 156–60 renunciation of first marriage, 51–2, 56–7 residences, 122–4 retainers, 44–5, 72–8, 110, 123–4, 136–8, 139–41, 146–7, 167–70, 176–8, 181, 185–7, 189–94 rhetoric, 15, 45–7, 56–7, 60–1, 73–7, 87–9, 91–2, 95–6, 97–115, 121, 136–43, 145–50, 153–4 sibling relations: with Catherine of Aragon, 11–13, 25, 64, 96, 117, 127–9, 132, 134, 135, 144, 148–50, 153, 185, 216n104; with Henry, 3–4, 19–20, 37–8, 51–2, 62–4, 91–2, 94–109, 111, 112–17, 119–22, 126–9, 133–6, 143–4, 148–55, 156; with Margaret, 9, 116, 134, 142–4, 149, 156–7 spectacle: 8–10, 11, 17–19, 27–30, 37–8, 58–9, 65–72, 79–86, 119–20, 123–36; comparisons to Virgin, 13, 65–8, 81–3, 86, 155–6; as May Queen, 17–19 masques. See under spectacle Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 27 Mattingly, Garrett, 200n56, 200n61, 201n18 Maximilian of Austria, Holy Roman Emperor, 12, 15, 25, 26, 27–30, 44–5, 47, 49–50, 52, 55–7, 94–5, 96, 107, 115–16, 127, 130, 145 May Day of 1517, 120, 142–4 May Queen, 17–19, 27, 83 McCartney, Elizabeth, 78 McRae, Joan, 206n104 Meale, Carol, 36 Meun, Jean de, 31 Roman de la Rose, 5, 31 Michalove, Sharon, 23–4, 25

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 263

263

Milan, French ambitions regarding, 27, 52, 55, 63, 85, 88–9, 93, 94 Miller, Naomi, 20, 52, 100 Mirror of Gold for the Sinful Soul, 22 Mirror of Naples, 64, 105, 109, 110–12, 145, 233n84 Montemerlo, Pietro, 131 Montmorency, Anne de, Grand Master of France, 123, 139–40, 147, 189, 190–4 Montreuil-sur-mer, 65, 67–9, 81, 112 More, Thomas, 19–20 “A Rueful Lamentation,” 19–20 Mortimer, Margaret, 240n232 Mulla, Agostin da, 30 music, 23–6, 27, 29, 67, 70, 79, 84, 123–5, 128, 133, 138, 143 Neville, Sir Edmund, 84 Norfolk, Duke of. See Howard, Thomas Norwich, 125, 189 Order of St. Michael, 80 Order of the Garter, 25, 29, 68 Order of Toison d’Or (Golden Fleece), 25 Osherow, Michele, 236n158 Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso), 1, 4, 6, 21, 31, 34–5, 40, 60 Heroides: 1, 5–6, 31, 34–5, 60, 99, 133; Dido, 22, 35, 40; Hypsipyle, 60; Penelope, 5–6, 99 paintings. See Ambroise, Master; Perréal, Jean de Palsgrave, John, 5, 19, 21, 30–6, 72, 78, 110, 120, 136–8, 170, 181, 210–11n10 Lesclaircissement de la langue francoyse, 5, 30–6, 137, 210–11n10 Paris, Mary’s entry into, 79–84 Parsons, John Carmi, 74 Pasqualigo, Lorenzo, 64, 65, 134 Pasqualigo, Piero, 109 Passano, Jean Joachim de, Sieur de Vaulx, 146 “Pastime with good company,” 37 Paston, Margery, 212n31 Patterson, Annabel, 3 Pavia, 120, 145, 146

2/18/2011 3:57:46 PM

264

Index

Paynell, Thomas, 137–8, 151 The assaute and conquest of heven, 137 De contemptu mundi (Erasmus), 137–8, 151 Pearson, Meg Forbes, 215n91 Pennington, Sir William, 152 Penthesilea, Queen of the Amazons, 33–4, 137 Perréal, Jean de, 64 Perry, Maria, 4, 65, 197n5, 198n9, 215n89, 223n16, 227n107 Petrarch, Francesco, 21 Philip of Burgundy, King of Castile, Archduke of Austria, 11, 19, 25–7, 148 Philips, Kim, 36 physicians, 24, 44, 91, 99, 153–4, 194, 240n243 Pizan, Christine de, 21, 22–3, 33–4, 206n106 Epistre d’Othea, 21, 22–3 Livre de la cité de dames (Book of the City of Ladies), 33–4 Plantagenet, Arthur, Viscount Lisle, 139, 195–6 players, 69–70, 123–4 Pleine, Gerard de, 55–7 Pole, Edmund de la, Earl of Suffolk, 26 Pole, Richard de la, Earl of Suffolk, 52 Ponynges, Sir Edward, 212n48 Popincourt, Jane, 21, 72, 120, 123, 136, 139–40, 191–2 Powell, Susan, 200n65 Poyet, Jean, 152, 156 Praet, Louis de, 129 Préchac, Jean de, 2 Prie, René de, Cardinal, 66, 70, 79 Privy Council, 88, 91, 105, 107, 108, 112, 179, 180 proxy marriages Charles and Mary: aftermath, 44–7, ceremony, 27–30; renunciation by Mary, 50–2, 56–7 Louis and Mary: ceremony, 57–9; mock bedding, 58–9 Puebla, Rodrigo Gonzales de, 8, 12, 204n59, 219n163 Pynson, Richard, 29

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 264

Raimondi, Raimondo de, 27 Ramryge, Thomas, Abbot of St. Albans, 135 Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne, 8–9, 21 Redyng, Mary, 136 Renée, Princess of France, 50, 86, 219n158 Richardson, Glenn, 9, 86, 130–1, 207n115, 233n75 Richardson, Walter, 4, 65, 93–4, 156, 197n5, 197n6, 201n18, 211n18, 227n107 Richmond, 11, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 42, 205n91 Riddy, Felicity, 36 Robertet, Florimond, 77 Robin Hood, 37, 126 romances, 8, 10, 18–19, 21–2, 29, 36–44, 45, 75, 86, 98 Arthurian romances, 8, 10, 17, 21, 37–40, 68, 74, 75, 84, 208n137 Athelston, 40 Blanchardyn and Eglantine, 22, 36, 75–6 The Castell of Love, 207n127, 242n273 characters: Apollonius of Tyre, 15, 21; Cleriadus and Meliadice, 21; Melusine, 21, sons of Aymon, 21, 84 Huon of Bordeaux, 207n127, 242n273 Valentine and Orson, 40 see also Froissart, Jean; Hawes, Stephen; Malory, Sir Thomas Rouel, Michelle, 110 Russell, Joycelyne, 131, 232n74, 243n108 Ruthal, Thomas, Bishop of Durham, 64, 135 Rymer, Thomas, 204n71 St. Albans, Abbot. See Ramryge, Thomas St. Bridget, 22, 158 The Fifteen Oes, 22, 158, 160 St. Catherine, 8, 63–4, 137, 158 St. Elizabeth, 152, 155 Saint-Gelais, Octavien de, 31 St. George, 63, 84, 158 St. Margaret, 63–4, 68, 137, 158 St. Martin, Nicholas de, 123, 147, 190–4 St. Mary Magdalene, 63, 64, 107, 158 St. Ursula, 8, 137, 158

2/18/2011 3:57:47 PM

Index saints, 63, 137, 158, 243n281 see also individual saints Salinas, Maria de, 11, 149 Sampson, Richard, 116 Sanseverino, Galeazzo di, 70, 85 Sanuto, Marino, 27, 30, 217n131 Savage, Anthony, 140–1, 185–6 Savage, Susan, 140–1, 185–6 Scale of Perfection, 22 Schatew [Chateau] Vert, 129, 150 see also spectacle: masques Schneider, Gary, 199n24, 199n27 scribes/secretaries, 31, 44, 72, 75, 78, 88, 94, 110, 113, 115–16, 123, 146, 147, 150, 203n37 Semiramis, Queen of Babylon, 33–4 Seyssel, Claude de, 21 Sforza, Ludovico, Duke of Milan, 27, 197n6 Sforza, Massimiliano, Duke of Milan, 55 Shakespeare, William, 152 Antony and Cleopatra, 105 Henry IV, Part II, 54–5 Henry VIII, 134 Romeo and Juliet, 1, 152 Sharpe, Kevin, 18, 66, 120, 122–3, 130, 207n115 Sheingorn, Pamela, 202–3n34 Sherman, Claire Richter, 78 ships Great Elizabeth, 65 Henry Grace à Dieu, 64 La Pucelle Marie, 127 Shrewsbury, 124 Sidney, Sir William, 84, 105, 115 Skelton, John, 20, 37, 205n92 Skeron, Anne, 197n6 Soardino, Jacopo, 130–1, 133 “Song made in honor of my lady Mary,” 28 “A Song of an English Knight,” 2, 206n110 Song of Solomon, 66–7, 81 Southwark. See Suffolk House spectacle banquets, 2, 9, 10, 13, 29, 37, 58, 79, 84, 86, 104, 117, 127, 128–9, 132–3, 143, 144, 151, 153, 218n141 ceremonies, 25, 26

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 265

265

coronations: Anne Boleyn, 153–4; Francis, 94; Henry VIII, 37; Mary, 14, 78–9, 86, 88, 89, 142 entertainments, 29, 36–8, 70, 72, 117, 123–4, 126–9 entry spectacles: of Catherine of Aragon, 8–9; of Mary, 65–72, 79–84 funerals, 155–6 jousts, 128, 143 masques, 8, 15, 37, 117, 124, 129, 133, 150, 207n123 plays, 129, 141–2, 214n66 weddings, 8, 9, 14, 28–30, 58, 70, 105, 115, 153, 156 see also tournaments Spinelly, Thomas, 95, 104–5, 116 Starkey, David, 163, 198n9, 201n8 Staverton Park, 126 Steen, Sara Jayne, 3, 228n124, 241n255 Stein, Gabriele, 31, 207n127 Stevenson, Sir William, 136 Stewart, Alan, 228n124 Stile, John, 199n52, 204n70 Stourton, Lord William, 123 Stow, John, 122, 143–4 Streitberger, W.R., 38 Stuart, Lady Arbella, 241n255 Suffolk House, 122, 188 Summit, Jennifer, 7, 203n36 tapestries, 10, 22, 28, 44, 62, 63, 79, 84, 131, 134–5, 202n27, 206n102 Tasso, Torquato, 87 Thérouanne, 49, 50, 52 Thetford Priory, 124, 125 Tournai, 49, 52, 88, 104, 106, 107, 171 tournaments, 10, 13, 17–19, 22, 38–9, 77, 89, 104, 128 1501, marriage of Arthur and Catherine, 8 1502, marriage of Margaret and James, 10 1506, Lady May, 27 1507, “Justes of the Months of May and June,” 17–19, 27 1509, Henry VIII’s coronation, 37 1511, birth of Henry and Catherine’s son, 37 1515, marriage of Mary and Louis, 2, 84–6

2/18/2011 3:57:47 PM

266

Index

tournaments—Continued 1517, celebration of treaty with Spain/ Low Countries, 128 1520, Field of Cloth of Gold, 130–3 treaties, 2, 26, 27–8, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 94, 127, 128–9, 145, 146, 150 Treul, Jean du, 71–2 Triulzi, Antonio, Bishop of Asti, 58, 63, 70, 217n127 Triulzi, Hieronimo, 109 Troy myths, 21, 22–3, 31, 32–4, 35, 40, 86, 128, 137 Tudor, house of Arthur. See Arthur, Prince of Wales Elizabeth I. See Elizabeth, Princess Henry VI. See Henry VII, King of England Henry VIII. See Henry VIII, King of England Margaret. See Margaret, Queen of Scotland Mary. See Mary, Queen of France Mary I. See Mary, Princess Turpyn, Richard, 28, 84 Tuke, Brian, 113, 154 Underwood, Malcolm, 201n15, 206n111, 220n176 University of Paris, 86 Uvedale, William, 136 Val, Anthoine du, 139–40, 189, 190–4 Valence, Pierre, 137 Introductions in Frensche for Henry, 137 Vallée, Anne de, 110 Vaughan, Stephen, 137 Vendôme, Charles de Bourbon, Duke, 66, 70, 79, 85, 132 Vergil, Polydore, 55, 65, 121, 131, 232n68, 232n74 Verner, William, 78 Verney, Dorothy, 136 Verney, Eleanor, 236n156 Veyrier, John, 99, 173, 225n52 Villebresme, 142–3 Vives, Juan Luis, 24 De Institutione Foeminae Christianae (On the Instruction of a Christian Woman), 24

9780230620308_10_ind.indd 266

Walker, Greg, 10, 124, 142 Warbeck, Perkin, 9, 26 Warham, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, 58 Warnicke, Retha, 219n158, 239n216, 240n239 weddings. See under spectacle West, Nicholas, 55, 71, 78, 94, 105, 173 West Stow Hall, 122 Westhorpe, 122, 123, 124, 154, 155 Westminster Abbey, 152, 155 Westminster Palace, 11, 37, 205n91 William, Duke of Bavaria, 96 Williams, Deanna, 144 Williams, John, 139, 196 Willoughby, Catherine, Duchess of Suffolk, 149, 241n256 Willoughby, Sir Henry, 123 Windsor, 11 Wingfield, Edmund, 30 Wingfield, Sir Humphrey, 141, 189 Wingfield, Sir Richard, 94, 105, 130, 145, 173 Wingfield, Sir Robert, 94–5 Wolfe, Heather, 228n124 Wolsey, Thomas, Archbishop of York, Cardinal of York, 6, 7, 14, 51, 52–3, 60–1, 64, 72–7, 81, 85, 91–2, 98, 103, 104, 105–6, 111, 112–15, 116, 120, 121, 127, 128–9, 130–2, 134–5, 142, 143, 145–6, 147, 149, 150–1, 154, 166, 168, 170, 172, 177, 180–7, 189, 205n87 letters, 76–7, 95, 102, 106 patronage, 78, 110, 136, 138–41 Woodville, Elizabeth, Queen of England, 208n137 Worcester, Charles Somerset, Earl, 55, 59, 71, 72, 77, 78, 165–6 Worde, Wynkyn de, 17, 22, 40, 75 Wormald, Francis, 217n119, 217n124 Wycliffe Bible, 21 Wyngaerde, Anthony van den, 122 Yavneh, Naomi, 20, 52, 100 Younge, John, 10

2/18/2011 3:57:47 PM