• Today in Tudor History...

    1st July 1431 – The Battle of La Higueruela takes place in Granada, leading to a modest advance of Castilian during the Reconquista.


    1481 – Birth of Christian II of Denmark

    Today in Tudor History...

    1506 – Birth of Louis II of Hungary 

    Today in Tudor History...

    1517-Future Pope Adrian VI is Elevated to Cardinal by Pope Leo X


    1523 – Johann Esch and Heinrich Voes become the first Lutheran martyrs, burned at the stake by Roman Catholic authorities in Brussels.

    On learning of the execution of Esch and Voes, Martin Luther wrote what is thought to be his first hymn, "Ein neues Lied wir heben an"


    1527-Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn



    Today in Tudor History...




    I have been in great agony about the contents of your letters, not knowing whether to construe them to my disadvantage "comme en des aucunes autres," or to my advantage. I beg to know expressly your intention touching the love between us. Necessity compels me to obtain this answer, having been more than a year wounded by the dart of love, and not yet sure whether I shall fail or find a place in your affection. This has prevented me naming you my mistress; for if you love me with no more than ordinary love, the name is not appropriate to you, for it denotes a singularity far from the common. But if it please you to do the office of a true, loyal mistress, and give yourself, body and heart, to me, who have been and mean to be your loyal servant, I promise you not only the name, but that I shall make you my sole mistress, remove all others from my affection, and serve you only. Give me a full answer on which I can rely; and if you do not like to answer by letter, appoint some place where I can have it by word of mouth.


    Though it is not for a gentleman to take his lady in the place of a servant, nevertheless, according to your desire, I shall willingly grant it if thereby I may find you less ungrateful in the place chosen by yourself than you have been in the place given you by me; thanking you most heartily that you are pleased still to have some remembrance of me


    Although, my mistress, you have not been pleased to remember your promise when I was last with you, to let me hear news of you and have an answer to my last, I think it the part of a true servant to inquire after his mistress's health and send you this, desiring to hear of your prosperity. I also send by the bearer a buck killed by me late last night, hoping when you eat of it you will think of the hunter. Written by the hand of your servant, who often wishes you in the place of your brother.


    I and my heart put ourselves in your hands. Let not absence lessen your affection; for it causes us more pain than I should ever have thought, reminding us of a point of astronomy that the longer the days are, the further off is the sun, and yet the heat is all the greater. So it is with our love, which keeps its fervour in absence, at least on our side. Prolonged absence would be intolerable, but for my firm hope in your indissoluble affection. As I cannot be with you in person, I send you my picture set in bracelets.

    Today in Tudor History...

    1534 – Birth of Frederick II of Denmark 

    Today in Tudor History...

    1535-Thomas More is tried for treason in Westminster Hall.  He pleads "not guilty," and argues that he has never shown malice to the king or violated the terms of the Treason act. The king's attorney contends that More's silence is evidence of  "a corrupt and perverse nature" and itself a violation of the Act. Thomas More replies that under the law, silence should be taken as consent, not disagreement.  He also denies violating the Treason Act in letters to Fisher or in his conversation with Richard Rich, who he calls a liar.  Rich testifies, however, that Thomas More in a conversation did deny that Henry was the supreme head of the Church of England.  Two other witnesses present in the cell testify that they heard nothing of the conversation in question.  After one hour of deliberation, the jury of twelve men finds More guilty.  He is sentenced to be hanged until "half dead," disemboweled, and burned.


    Today in Tudor History...

     Trial of Sir Thomas More.

    i. Special commission of oyer and terminer for Middlesex, to Sir Thos. Audeley, chancellor; Thos. duke of Norfolk; Charles duke of Suffolk; Hen. earl of Cumberland; Thos. earl of Wiltshire; Geo. earl of Huntingdou; Hen. lord Montague; Geo. lord Rocheford; Andrew lord Windsor; Thos. Crumwell, secretary; Sir Will. Fitzwilliam; Sir Will. Paulet; Sir John Fitzjames; Sir John Baldewyn; Sir Ric. Lister; Sir John Porte; Sir John Spelman; Sir Walter Luke; and Sir Ant. Fitzherbert.— Westm., 26 June 27 Hen. VIII.

    ii. Precept to the sheriff for the return of the grand jury at Westminster on Monday next after the feast of St. John the Baptist.—Westm., 26 June 27 Hen. VIII. With panel annexed.

    iii. Indictment as hereafter set forth.

    Endd.: Billa vera.

    iv. The justices' precept to the constable of the Tower, commanding him to bring up the body of Sir Thos. More, late of Chelchehithe, Midd., at Westminster, on Thursday next after the morrow of St. John the Baptist.—Westm., 30 June 27 Hen. VIII.

    v. The justices' precept to the sheriff of Middlesex for the return of the petty jury this Thursday after the morrow of St. John the Baptist.—Westm., 1 July 27 Hen. VIII.

    vi. Record of the sessions held before the special commissioners, citing the above documents.

    The indictment  found at Westminster on Monday next after the feast of St. John the Baptist, setting forth the Acts 26 Hen. VIII. [e. 1, 13].

    Found, that Sir Thos. More, traitorously attempting to deprive the King of his title of Supreme Head of the Church, &c., did, 7 May 27 Hen. VIII., at the Tower of London, before Cromwell, Thos. Bedyll, clk., and John Tregonell, LL.D., the King's councillors, and divers others, being examined whether he would accept the King as Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England, pursuant to the statute, refused to give a direct answer, saying "I will not meddle with any such matters, for I am fully determined to serve God, and to think upon His Passion and my passage out of this world." Afterwards, 12 May 27 Hen. VIII., the said Sir Thomas, knowing that one John Fissher, clk., was then detained in the Tower for divers misprisions, and that the said Fissher had refused to accept the King as above, wrote divers letters to him, which he transmitted by one Geo. Golde, declaring his agreement with Fisher, and intimating the silence which he, More, had observed when interrogated. In these letters he wrote as follows:—" The Act of Parliament is like a sword with two-edges, for if a man answer one way it will confound his soul, and if he answer the other way it will confound his body."

    Afterwards, fearing lest Fisher should reveal upon further examination what he had written to him, the said Sir Thomas, at the Tower, 26 May 27 Hen. VIII., sent other letters to Fisher, requesting him to answer according to his own mind, and not to give any such answer as he, Sir Thos., had written, lest the Council should suspect confederacy between them. Nevertheless, in consequence of the letters first written, Fisher did, 3 June 27 Hen. VIII., at the Tower, when examined by Sir Thos. Audeley, Suffolk, Wiltshire, and others, refuse to answer directly, and said, "I will not meddle with that matter, for the statute is like a two-edged sword; and if I should answer one way I should offend my conscience, and if I should answer the other way I should put my life in jeopardy. Wherefore I will make no answer in that matter."

    The said Sir Thomas likewise, when examined at the Tower, 3 June 27 Hen. VIII., maliciously persevered in refusing to give a direct answer, and, imagining to move sedition and hatred against the King, said to the King's councillors, "The law and statute whereby the King is made Supreme Head as is aforesaid be like a sword with two edges; for if a man say that the same laws be good then it is dangerous to the soul, and if he say contrary to the said statute then it is death to the body. Wherefore I will make thereunto none other answer, because I will not be occasion of the shorting of my life." And, moreover, the said More and Fisher, in order to conceal their treacherous intentions, severally burned their letters which passed between them immediately after reading the same.

    Afterwards, 12 June 27 Hen. VIII., Richard Ryche, the King's Solicitor General, came to Sir Thomas in the Tower, and charitably moved him to comply with the Acts; to which More replied, "Your conscience will save you, and my conscience will save me." Ryche then, protesting that he had no authority to make any communication with More, said to him, "Supposing that it were enacted by Parliament that he, Richard Ryche, should be King, and that it should be treason to deny the same, what would be the offence if he, Sir Thomas More, were to say that the said Ryche, was King?" For certain, the said Ryche further said, in his conscience it would be no offence, but that More was obliged so to say, and to accept Ryche for King, because the consent of the said More was compelled by an Act of Parliament. To which More then and there answered that he should offend if he were to say no, because he would be bound by an Act, because he was able to give his consent to it. But he said that would be a light case; wherefore he would put a higher case:—"Suppose it should be enacted by Parliament that God should not be God, and that opposing the Act should be treason; and if it were asked of you, Ric. Ryche, whether you would say that God was not God according to the statute, and if you were to say so, would you not offend?" To which Ryche answered More, "Certainly, because it is impossible that God should not be God. But because your case is so high, I will put a medium one. You know that our lord the King is constituted Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England; and why ought not you, Master More, to affirm and accept him so, just as you would in the preceding case, in which you admit that you would be bound to accept me as King?" To which More, persevering in his treasons, answered that the cases were not similar; because a King can be made by Parliament, and deprived by Parliament; to which Act every subject being at the Parliament may give his assent (ad quem actum quilibet subditus ad Parliamentum existens suum præbeat consensum); but as to the primacy, a subject cannot be bound, because he cannot give his consent to that in Parliament (quia consensum suum ab eo ad Parliamentum præbere non potest); and although the King is so accepted in England, yet many foreign countries do not affirm the same."

    Trial at Westminster on Thursday next after the feast of St. John Baptist, 27 Hen. VIII. Sir Thomas brought to the bar by Sir Edm. Walsingham, lieutenant of Sir Will. Kingston, constable of the Tower, pleads Not guilty.

    Venire awarded, returnable same day. Prisoner again brought to the bar. Verdict Guilty.

    Judgment as usual in high treason. Execution at Tyburn.

    Record brought into the Court of King's Bench by Sir John Fitzjames, Monday next after the morrow of the Purification, 27 Hen. VIII.


    Sir Thomas More's Speech at his Trial.


       If I were a man, my lords, that did not regard an oath, I need not, as it is well known, in this place, at this time, nor in this case to stand as an accused person. And if this oath of yours, Master Rich, be true, then pray I that I may never see God in the face, which I would not say, were it otherwise to win the whole world.

           In good faith, Master Rich, I am sorrier for your perjury than for mine own peril, and you shall understand that neither I nor any man else to my knowledge ever took you to be a man of such credit in any matter of importance I or any other would at any time vouchsafe to communicate with you. And I, as you know, of no small while have been acquainted with you and your conversation, who have known you from your youth hitherto, for we long dwelled together in one parish. Whereas yourself can tell (I am sorry you compel me to say) you were esteemed very light of tongue, a great dicer, and of no commendable fame. And so in your house at the Temple, where hath been your chief bringing up, were you likewise accounted. Can it therefore seem likely to your honorable lordships, that I would, in so weighty a cause, so unadvisedly overshoot myself as to trust Master Rich, a man of me always reputed for one of little truth, as your lordships have heard, so far above my sovereign lord the king, or any of his noble counselors, that I would unto him utter the secrets of my conscience touching the king's supremacy, the special point and only mark at my hands so long sought for?

           A thing which I never did, nor ever would, after the statute thereof made, reveal unto the King's Highness himself or to any of his honorable counselors, as it is not unknown to your honors, at sundry and several times, sent from His Grace's own person unto the Tower unto me for none other purpose. Can this in your judgment, my lords, seem likely to be true? And if I had so done, indeed, my lords, as Master Rich hath sworn, seeing it was spoken but in familiar, secret talk, nothing affirming, and only in putting of cases, without other displeasant circumstances, it cannot justly be taken to be spoken maliciously; and where there is no malice there can be no offense. And over this I can never think, my lords, that so many worthy bishops, so many noble personages, and many other worshipful, virtuous, wise, and well-learned men as at the making of the law were in Parliament assembled, ever meant to have any man punished by death in whom there could be found no malice, taking malitia pro malevolentia: for if malitia be generally taken for sin, no man is there that can excuse himself. Quia si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. [If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.] And only this word, "maliciously" is in the statute material, as this term "forcibly" is in the statute of forcible entries, by which statute if a man enter peaceably, and put not his adversary out "forcibly," it is no offense, but if he put him out "forcibly," then by that statute it is an offense, and so shall be punished by this term, "forcibly."

           Besides this, the manifold goodness of the King's Highness himself, that hath been so many ways my singular good lord and gracious sovereign, and that hath so dearly loved and trusted me, even at my first coming into his noble service, with the dignity of his honorable privy council, vouchsafing to admit me; and finally with the weighty room of His Grace's higher chancellor, the like whereof he never did to temporal man before, next to his own royal person the highest office in this whole realm, so far above my qualities or merits and meet therefor of his own incomparable benignity honored and exalted me, by the space of twenty years or more, showing his continual favors towards me, and (until, at mine own poor suit it pleased His Highness, giving me license with His Majesty's favor to bestow the residue of my life wholly for the provision of my soul in the service of God, and of his special goodness thereof to discharge and unburden me) most benignly heaped honors continually more and more upon me; all this His Highness's goodness, I say, so long thus bountifully extended towards me, were in my mind, my lords, matter sufficient to convince this slanderous surmise by this man so wrongfully imagined against me....

           Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, to Saint Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man....

           More have I not to say, my lords, but that like as the blessed apostle Saint Paul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, was present and consented to the death of Saint Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now twain holy saints in heaven, and shall continue there friends forever: so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation. 



    Today in Tudor History...

    1536 - Mary and Elizabeth declared illegitimate by Parliament

    Today in Tudor History...

    Princess Mary to Cromwell

    Cannot express the great joy and comfort she has received, both by his letters and by the report of her servant, the bearer, of the King her father's goodness; which she doubts not she has obtained the better by his continual suit. Is bound to pray for him during her life. Has made no bill for her apparel. The King's favor is so good clothing to her, she desires no more; and so she has written to his Grace. Thanks him for the horse he sent by bearer, which is a great pleasure, for she had never a one to ride on sometimes for her health. Hownsdon, 1 July.

    Today in Tudor History...

    Chapuys to Charles V.

    Since the departure of my man I have several times solicited that it might please the King to decide upon treating with your Majesty for the mutual intelligence so often discussed, and to declare to me the conditions, as he lately promised, without waiting further answer from France, as he might be sure the French would never agree to reasonable terms. Cromwell has twice said to me in reply that the King was anxious to bring your Majesty and the French king into amity, and that until he received an answer to the message sent by the bailiff of Troyes, he would take no further step; but I might be sure that on the French refusing to do their part the King would do his duty towards your Majesty. Cromwell also told me, the last time I spoke to him, that the King had that day received letters from his ambassadors in France, stating that the French king had made to them great complaints of your Majesty, and intimating that the French had gained a victory over the Imperialists. Cromwell said the King laughed at these news as French brag, and that he was quite devoted to the Emperor's interests, waiting an opportunity to declare himself with honour; but your Majesty must take care to make a firm and sincere amity, not for one year or two, but for ever. This I affirmed was your real intention, and I made him confess that you were not to blame, as the King pretended, for breach of promise for not continuing the war against Francis after his capture.

    Cromwell then said, en passant, and half in mockery, that the French were seeking to have the Princess in marriage. He said no more, but I have since learned that a principal servant of the French ambassador told some one a marriage was treated of between the Princess and the duke of Angoulême, who would come and reside here; and that the French expected by this means to get the King to declare himself on their side, or at least to be a mediator to settle everything. Will endeavour to find out something about this in conversation with Cromwell.

    Yesterday, St. John's Day, I received your letters of the 8th June, with the documents therein mentioned; which arrived most opportunely, for to-day the French ambassador and I were in Court to discuss matters, and Cromwell had sent to tell me yesterday that we should be called for that purpose, and that I must not take the slightest suspicion from anything said or done, but use the most moderate language with the said ambassador, and afterwards leave matters to him, for he would conduct them to Your Majesty's satisfaction. This he repeated to me this morning. Soon after the said ambassador and I had arrived in Court, as it was not intended that the King should go out to mass, or that we should speak to him, we were asked to dine, and suddenly after dinner, Cromwell in presence of the Council, viz., the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, the marquis of Exeter, the earls of Auffourt (Oxford) and Succes (Sussex) and others, stated that his master had been urged by his ally the Most Christian king, by virtue of the leagues between them, to assist him against your Majesty, who, in violation of treaties, had made war upon him, and that his master, being a prince of virtue and honor, desirous to do right and keep promises, and having also treaties with your Majesty, had called the said ambassador and myself to learn what he should do; and addressing the said ambassador, said that as it was he who made this claim, it was for him to speak first and make his complaints. On this the ambassador said the King, his master, never imagined that this matter would come into discussion, and therefore had given him no instructions to dispute about it, and that he thought he had given full information of every thing to the King; but since Cromwell desired it, he would repeat everything there. He then entered into the matter at great length, first speaking of the great endeavours of Francis, and his willingness to accept unreasonable conditions to obtain the patrimony of his children, viz., Milan, which he could not have alienated by certain laws which he alleged very mal à propos; moreover, that Milan could not be declared lawfully alienated, seeing that the treaty of Madrid had been made by his master to be delivered from most severe imprisonment, and that of Cambray had been made for the redemption of the children, which by law implies as great intimidation as if the father himself had been detained in prison, and that the money ransom alone was excessive, apart from the surrender of so many titles and lordships; and that nevertheless his master had observed the treaties in everything, which only showed that he did not pursue his own quarrel against others as he might have done against the duke of Savoy without violating the treaties; for although the said Duke was comprehended in them, he was not named as a principal contrahent, but only as accessory, and the accessory could not weaken the principal; and that the King, his master, might ignore the fact of the Duke being a vassal of the Empire instead of demanding redress from him of your Majesty, as you pretend; and, moreover, even if the King his master had certainly known the said Duke to be your vassal, yet, having seen the little regard for justice you had shown in the case of Merveilles, he had no occasion to demand of your Majesty justice from the said Duke; and further, the house of France was not accustomed to demand justice, but to enforce it; and it was needless to quote the civil law against this, for his master was not subject thereto; also, that it was not his master who had begun the war, but the duke of Savoy, by denying restitution of what belonged to his master, citing as to this a rule of common law which says qui causam dat damni damnum fecisse videtur.

    He said you had, without regard to treaties or relationship and without defiance, invaded his master's subjects, besieged Fossan, and, which he made a case of great importance, summoned the marquis of Saluces to acknowledge the Empire, though he was notoriously subject to the French king; in proof of which the marquis' elder brother had been all his life in the service of the King his master, and your Majesty had never complained nor had you made any provision for him, and no mention had been made of Saluces in the treaties. The ambassador also complained of a ship lately taken by Spaniards at Aigues Mortes, and of some incursions by your subjects on the frontiers of Picardy; moreover that you boasted you would invade Provence and pass further; and that this King ought to consider that this pretension to invade France could only arise from the desire of monarchy, which you hoped to obtain partly by force and partly by dissimulation and cunning, like other monarchs, and it must be supposed that as the said monarchy had such a beginning it would be dissolved by the same means, and things would return in the end to their natural liberty. In this he scarcely spoke in favor of other princes; and although the said ambassador denounced the usurpation of the ancient Romans, "repeter le sien par force sans autres ceremonie que denvoyer un roy d'armes pour indire la guerre." He concluded by declaring his master was attacked (estoit a tourd agaresse?) by the Emperor, and that the King was bound to assist him in his lawful defence.

    On my being asked to speak, I said that it should be considered, even if I did not say so, that since the said ambassador, who was the claimant, and ought to have come instructed of his rights, had no charge to enter into the discussion of such matters, still less should I have any such charge, and that I thought the case was so notorious, even to the King and his Council, that they could not disguise or palliate it; and that I was very sorry that the French had not sooner addressed this King, so as to come to peace before things had gone so far; at least, before attacking the duke of Savoy they might have asked the King's advice, which I was sure would have been quite contrary to what they have done. But since the King and the company wished me to reply, I would obey willingly, protesting in the first place that I spoke without instructions, and like a private person, "et que m'en deporteroye le plus legierement que me seroit possible, reservant de les informer du tout au vray et si amplement quilz demoureroient satisfaictz du tout entierement apres quen avroye parle a ced. roy." I then spoke of the efforts made by your Majesty for peace, as shown by the offers made in the consistory and before that, at which all the world was astonished that you would give such an estate (Milan), worth as much as any kingdom, "de droit denier," which was the bulwark of the kingdom of Naples, and the state, of all the world, most profitable to your Majesty,— observing that the said offer arose from pure liberality, and that the king of France could not rightly put in any claim, even if the treaty of Madrid were invalid, as Cromwell had seen by the book I had shown him some time ago, to which no answer had been made on the side of France, the case was so clear; and as to the treaties of Madrid and Cambray, what the ambassador said could not render them invalid for several reasons that I alleged, especially as the French king had always ratified them, who said, even lately, to Nassau, when he passed through France, that he would observe them; nevertheless, he has only observed them in words, especially the articles mentioned in the reply of your Majesty, which I specified myself, without stating that I had been instructed by you.

    To these articles the ambassador made no reply, except touching the heirs of the late duke of Bourbon. He said that the goods of the said Duke had been justly confiscated, and thereupon he inveighed against the said Duke's infamy. As to the rest of the articles he tried to escape by what your Majesty had declared to the ambassadors of the King his master on the third day of Easter, that your Majesty did not intend, by the words you had used in Consistory the day before, to defy the King his master, nor that war should be begun (ouverte), meaning to insinuate by a letter of his master, which he showed, that your Majesty acknowledged that there had been no cause of rupture before the said third day of Easter. I said that, as the words he used were obscure, the interpretation, according to law, ought to be that of him who had used them, although there was no doubt that by the said words your Majesty had declared openly that you would not make war or duel in case the offer of the duchy of Milan for the third son of France was accepted, and reparation was made to the duke of Savoy; and this expression, "rompre la guerre en Italie," could only signify proclaim it, and it was impossible to infer from it that your Majesty was satisfied with the said articles. And if he meant to say that, according to the lawyers, injuries are remitted by dissimulation, "et que vre. Mate appelloit toutes les contraventions mencionnez au propoz que vre. Mate tint au Consistoire," I replied that the saying of the lawyers applied to verbal injuries or slanders, et non prosecutive rei familiaris, and it might be said that your Majesty did not intend to break war (rompre la guerre), for the French had already broken it.

    I must not omit to mention that in alleging the treaties of the French king with Gueldres, I called Cromwell to witness that he had seen them, which he did not deny. As to the allegation of the said ambassador that the duke of Savoy was the aggressor, I said it was like the wolf in Æsop accusing the lamb, and I wondered at his argument from civil law in one point, when in others he repudiated civil law, as it was well known, as one of our doctors recited, that the French accepted the civil law, not as founded on right and equity, and even if there were no question of that law, it would not be found by any other that a party could be judge on his own side, except in certain cases which I alleged. Reports further his arguments touching Savoy and Nice, showing that France had no right to them, and his reply to the ambassador about the marquis of Saluces, the siege of Fossan, the ship taken, and other accidents of war, which he showed to have been since the aggression on the duke of Savoy. Said he had heard nothing of the rumour about the invasion of Provence; but, if it were true, the Emperor would only be invading his own property, and even if it were not his he had a right to molest France on all sides. Speaking for himself as a lawyer, Chapuys said that Francis having broken the treaties, the Emperor was not bound to him any way. Thinks that the most part of the company applauded this sentiment, especially the Chancellor and Cromwell. As to the monarchy, he said the Emperor had clearly disarmed suspicion in everyone, except those who hankered after it themselves, and this not by words but by deeds. He had restored the kingdom of Tunis to the expelled King, refused the dukedom of Florence and Monego, frequently given away the duchy of Milan, and allowed Genoa to be erected into a republic, and after so much war and trouble had not increased his territory by a foot of earth. The ambassador said the Emperor had acted with great subtlety, giving away Milan and Florence to those who served him at need and gave pensions, so that it was just as if you had kept the duchies. I replied that I was surprised that they who aimed at this monarchy had not used equal subtlety, and retained the king of England as vassal in the duchies of Guienne and Normandy; at which everybody laughed, much to the ambassador's disgust. After these discussions, in which there was not an unpleasant word, but all was done as if for pastime, the Chancellor and two or three of the company said to the French ambassador that whatever might be said about the other articles in which I had said the French king had infringed the treaties, he had shown no justification of the invasion of Savoy, and the duke of Norfolk told him that he would do well to put his case in writing, "et que je y refusa ce faire," of which I was very glad. After this I said that since I had been called as it were to judgment, it was lawful to me to make use of reconvencion (revival of suit), and I begged the King according to the old treaties between him and your Majesty to assist you with men and money. Cromwell then said the King his master wished to do his duty to both parties as he was bound; and thereupon went alone to the King, and having remained some time returned and told us that the King having heard the report of our discussions would take good advice upon the whole and call us again within two days. As it was now supper time I had no opportunity of showing this King your Majesty's letters upon the answer made to the king of France.

    The two days being passed during which we were to be called, I continually pressed to have audience either of the King or Council, or of Cromwell alone, to show the said letters of your Majesty and to urge that the King should declare himself according to the treaties since the French ambassador had opened the door; but till this day, 1 July, Cromwell has put me off with gracious excuses, begging me two or three times not to be at the trouble to go thither, but to send him the copy of the said letters; which, when I declined to do for certain reasons, he sent to me today to say that tomorrow he would speak to the King his master for my audience, and that he begged, as the King might suspect something from the negociations having cooled for the establishment of amity, about which nothing has been done for some time, that I would tell him what it was, that he might answer about it. This he asked, as he said, of his own accord, but I think it was by the King's command. I sent to say that your Majesty's goodwill had nowise cooled, indeed, was warmer than ever, and that I had declared it several times to the King, and that till the King made some answer, you could add nothing to what you had written to me, as it appeared by your last letters and that I expected my man within a few days, by whom I would write to your Majesty the conditions required by the King for the renewal of the treaties, and that as soon as he came I would inform the King. I think those here were very glad that I irrefragably confuted the demand of the French, whom they want to bring into perplexity in order to bring them over to their opinion against the Pope, and they keep deferring my audience till they have news from France, and also to win time in order that according to the progress of affairs they may play at "boules de veue." Cromwell, who used continually to say that it was necessary to punish the French, now speaks only about peace.

    When the Princess, having written several good letters to the King her father, and to this Queen, expected to be out of trouble, trusting to the hope held out to her, she found herself in the most extreme perplexity and danger she had ever been in, and not only herself, but all her principal friends. The King, seven or eight days after the departure of the man whom I sent to your Majesty, took a fancy to insist that the Princess should consent to his statutes, or he would proceed by rigour of law against her, and, to induce her to yield, sent to her the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Sussex, the bishop of Chester,  and certain others, whom she confounded by her wise and prudent answers, till they, seeing that they could not conquer her in argument, told her that since she was so unnatural as to oppose the King's will so obstinately, that they could scarcely believe she was his bastard, and if she was their daughter, they would beat her and knock her head so violently against the wall that they would make it as soft as baked apples, and that she was a traitress and should be punished, and several other words. And her gouvernante was commanded not to allow any one to speak to her, and that she and another should never lose sight of her day or night. Nevertheless the said Princess found means to send me immediate information of everything, begging me not to leave her without counsel in her extreme necessity. On this I wrote to her very fully, telling her, among other things, that she must make up her mind if the King persisted in his obstinacy, or she found evidence that her life was in danger, either by maltreatment or otherwise, to consent to her father's wish, assuring her that such was your advice, and that, to save her life, on which depended the peace of the realm and the redress of the great disorders which prevail here, she must do everything and dissemble for some time, especially as the protestations made and the cruel violence shown her preserved her rights inviolate and likewise her conscience, seeing that nothing was required expressly against God or the articles of the Faith, and God regarded more the intention than the act; and that now she had more occasion to do thus than during the life of the Concubine, as it was proposed to deprive the Bastard and make her heiress, and I felt assured that if she came to court she would by her wisdom set her father again in the right road, to which the intercession of your Majesty through the reconciliation and establishment of amity would conduce.

    The King, on hearing the report of the above Commissioners, and the prudent answer of the Princess, grew desperate with anger, which was for two reasons: first, for the refusal of the said Princess; and second, because he suspected that several of her attendants had advised her so to do. He accordingly made the most strict inquiries, and the Chancellor and Cromwell visited certain ladies at their houses, who, with others, were called before the Council and compelled to swear to the statutes; one of them, the wife of her chamberlain,  a lady of a great house, and one of the most virtuous in England, was taken to the Tower, where she is at present. The chief servant of the Princess, who knows all her secrets, was kept two days in Cromwell's house; and during six or seven days they were in council at Court from morning to evening, which was the reason I could not have audience during that time either of the King or Cromwell as I greatly wished.

    As I suspected even then, it was not opportune because the King was too angry, and Cromwell, for having communicated with me upon the affairs of the Princess, and showing himself rather favourable, was not free from suspicion, or without danger of being put to death, and, as he has since told me, he remained four or five days considering himself a lost man and dead. At the same time the Marquis and the Treasurer  as suspected persons were excluded from the Council, and the matter proceeded so far that, in spite of the prayers of this Queen, which he rudely repulsed, the King called the judges to proceed according to law to the inquest and first sentence which is given in the absence of the parties. I have been informed from more than one source that the King had sworn, in a great passion, that not only the Princess should suffer, but also the Marquis, Cromwell, and several others. Now I hear that the judges, in spite of threats, refused to decide, and advised that a writing should be sent to the Princess, and that if she refused to sign it, they should proceed against her. The Princess, being informed from various quarters how matters stood, signed the document without reading it. For her better excuse I had previously sent her the form of the protestation she must make apart. I had also warned her that she must in the first place endeavour to secure the King's pardon (grace), and, if possible, not give her approval to the said statutes except so far as she could do so agreeably to God and her conscience, or that she should promise only not to infringe the said statutes without expressing approval. I have not yet ascertained how the thing has passed, but in any case she never made a better day's work, for if she had let this opportunity slip there was no remedy in the world for her. As soon as news arrived of her subscription, incredible joy was shown in all the Court except by the Earl of Essex, who told the King that was a game that would cost him his head, for the injurious language he had used against the Princess. Innumerable persons sent to me to congratulate me on the reconciliation of the King and the Princess. After the Princess had signed the document she was much dejected, but I immediately relieved her of every doubt, even of conscience, assuring her that the Pope would not only not impute to her any blame, but would hold it rightly done.

    Since the Princess subscribed the said document, the King sent back the above Commissioners with others, among whom was Master Cromwell, who was charged by the King to carry to her a most gracious letter, and also, according to the custom of the country, another with the paternal blessing. And they all offered her the highest possible honour, addressing her almost continually kneeling upon the ground, especially asking her pardon for their previous conduct. The Princess remains very happy, especially on account of the goodwill that Cromwell bears her in the promotion of her affairs. She is only anxious as to how your Majesty will be satisfied with what she has done. And now that she has done it on my assurance that it was the will of your Majesty, yet it would be a marvellous consolation to her to know it by letters from you. She has also desired me to write to your Majesty's ambassador at Rome to procure a secret absolution from the Pope, otherwise her conscience could not be at perfect ease. I have congratulated Cromwell, expressing great satisfaction at what the Princess had done, for several reasons, especially that he and other of her friends had been extricated from the danger they were in. I even sent to him several times, when matters were so desperate, to advise the Princess to consent to the King's will, and I have since fully assured him that he should know before two months were over that there was no man in the world who had done better service in this matter than I. This I thought good to say for the advancement of the negociations for the amity.

    The French ambassador received letters the day before yesterday, and was yesterday with Cromwell, and this morning at Court, where I am told he has been for some time. To-morrow he and I are to be there again on the same matter as before. I have just heard this morning that several French ships, seeking to injure the subjects of your Majesty "si tiennent ung part du temps a la couste et aux autres de votre mate," and also that the French who make incursions into your countries take refuge at Calais, and sell their booty there. I will speak to the King to-morrow, awaiting instructions from you what to request in case the King remain neutral. I spoke of it already the other day to Cromwell, who said the King himself had spoken of it to the ambassador of France, who said that the ships which were near Dover had gone thither only to secure the passage of the Bailly of Troyes in case he wished to depart; but the contrary is very evident. London, 1 July 1536.

    Today in Tudor History...

    1543 - The Treaties of Greenwich are signed, approving of a marriage between Prince Edward and Mary, Queen of Scots


    Today in Tudor History...Today in Tudor History...

    1569 – Union of Lublin: the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania confirm a real union; the united country is called the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Republic of Both Nations.


    1581-Pope Gregory XIII Authorizes Inquisition to Handle all Cases Involving Jews


    source:law2.umkc.edu/,http://www.british-history.ac.uk/,Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History.
    « Today in Tudor History...Today in Tudor History... »