Today in Tudor History...
13 January 1528-The divorce
Has shown the Pope all that Wolsey wrote to him on Dec. 15, viz., the new contribution to be made by the King, and the preparations for Lautrec's progress; as well as the French king's instructions to Lautrec. The Spaniards and Germans demand two pays which are due to them, without which they will not leave Rome; but if Lautrec goes towards Naples the Spaniards also will go thither. It is not certain what the Germans will do. Is carrying on practices by means of the Pope for the surrender of Abruzzo.
The fleet has taken Sardinia. Renzo has received a reinforcement of Corsicans, and will attack Sicily when the wind is favorable.
Yesterday and today, had a long conference with the Pope about sending a legate conformably to Wolsey's letters of the 27 Dec. He is desirous of satisfying the King, but wishes to consult St. Quatuor and Simonetta as to the best method of proceeding, and they have resolved as follows: They think that the King must commit the cause to the Cardinal by virtue of the commission which the Secretary (Knight) takes, or of his own legatine authority; and when the cause is so committed, if the King finds his conscience disburdened, and he can honestly do what he requires, there is no doctor who can better resolve this point than the King himself. If, therefore, he is so resolved, as the Pope believes, let him commit his cause to the Legate, marry again, follow up the trial, let a public application be made for a legate who should be sent from the Consistory; for this will be most expedient. St. Quatuor and Simonetta say, if the Queen is cited she will put in no answer, except to protest against the place and the judges, and then the Imperialists will demand of the Pope a prohibition, and so the King cannot marry again, and if he does his offspring will not be legitimate. They will also demand a commission for the cause to be heard at Rome, and the Pope will not be able to refuse it. But if the King marry again they cannot demand a prohibition, and can only urge that Wolsey and the other cardinal and the place are suspicious, and ask that the cause may be examined at Rome, when the Pope will give sentence, and so judgment will be passed, to the satisfaction of the whole world, to which neither Spaniard nor German can make objection.
This is the method he suggests for proceeding; but he desires it should not be thought to come from himself. As Wolsey is anxious for speed a legate may be sent on the King's application. The Pope will consent to send whomsoever Casale shall nominate,—Campeggio, Cæsarinus, &c. Cesis is a hostage at Naples. Cæsarinus has a bishopric in Spain. Ara Cæli has the gout. Campeggio would be the most suitable, but cannot leave Rome immediately, unless Lautrec advances. The Pope tells me to say that he will not fail in doing what he can to satisfy the King's wishes; and I think he is sincere. He says he relies entirely on the King, and he is certain the Emperor will not pardon him, but force him to call a council or deprive him of his dignity and life. He has no trust in the French. Campeggio has written to the Pope that three days ago the Friar General spoke to him of the King's business, and ordered him to write to the Pope to put out a prohibition that the cause should not be tried in England.
1531-Chapuys to Charles V.
On the 11th the King received letters from Rome of 20 Dec., which did not please him much, nor the Lady either. Last night the duke of Norfolk sent to me to come this morning and speak with him at the church of the Jacobins, where I found him, and the Treasurer, and Dr. Stephen, chief secretary. Retiring to a private chapel, the Duke said he wished to inform me, both as your ambassador and as a friend of peace, of a constitution made by the States of the realm, and heretofore published, against bringing bulls or provisions from Rome; and said that two days ago he was informed that the Pope had, at the solicitation of the Queen's friends, sent them some very injurious mandates, which, if the Pope himself came to execute in person, nothing could save him from the fury of the people. He therefore begged me, if they came to my hands, to do nothing to execute them. He then said that the Popes in former times had tried to usurp authority, and that the people would not suffer it,still less would they do so now; that the King had a right of empire in his kingdom, and recognised no superior; that there had been an Englishman who had conquered Rome, to wit, Brennus; that Constantine reigned here, and the mother of Constantine was English, &c. I thanked the Duke for his good will in telling me this, and said my curiosity had not led me to inquire into their affairs or constitutions, which I consider did not bind the minister of your Majesty. As to the rights claimed by the Pope here, although I had learned something about them in their own chronicles, I did not wish to enter into the subject; but the authority which the Pope could exercise against disobedient kings and realms was notorious, and had been exercised in our times,on which subject they might address themselves to the Nuncio; and I thought they would do better to eradicate the cause which moved the Pope to issue those injunctions. I also said they might be sure your Majesty would not allow anything unreasonable to be done against the King, whose realm you would protect like your own, but that if I received your commands I would certainly do my best to execute them, come what might. The Church was not so reduced in power that it had no followers to protect truth and justice. They replied that they did not mean to speak about your Majesty; but as to the Pope, they did not hope for justice from him, for, if he had been so minded, he might have allowed the King to take another wife, as he had done to other princes. They did not name them; but, as I supposed they meant king Charles [VIII.] and Louis [XII.] of France, and the last Ladislaus king of Hungary, I pointed out the differences of the cases; and when they said that the judgment properly belonged to the archbishop of Canterbury, I showed them the contrary. Nevertheless, it seemed that God had blinded them in this matter, when, hoping to advance the cause, they made the said Archbishop and other prelates sign letters addressed to the Pope, which alone incapacitate them from being judges in the case. Finding they were disposed to listen, I took the opportunity of telling them part of my opinion upon the divorce, which I had hitherto withheld. I said they might be assured that if your Majesty, who, from the number and separation of your kingdoms, has more need of a plurality of children, had been not only in the King's position, but even in full liberty to marry, and had a daughter like the Princess, and if the King had prayed your Majesty as earnestly as you had prayed him (la, query for le?) in order to avoid the scandal and inconveniences, of which the Duke himself had spoken to me, you would have refrained from marrying again. I remarked, besides, that by marrying the Princess, he would be able to choose a successor more surely than nature would give him one, with good hope of having shortly male issue; and if it was true, as the Duke had told me, that the lawful title that the King has in this realm proceeded from a woman, namely, his mother, this course was all the more reasonable. To this the Duke was unable to reply, except very coldly, that still the King would marry if he could.
I said also that your Majesty and the Queen had more occasion to be dissatisfied with the Pope in this affair than the King had, whom he had gratified as much as he could. The Duke, referring to the Council, said the Pope might not get much benefit from it. I said they themselves, though they did not know it, had been partly the cause why the Pope had not so readily consented to the Council, that he might justify himself from various calumnies they had published about him, and show that he had given no occasion to the King to do anything against him or the Church, and that his Holiness acted like a good pastor, who, instead of being judge of all the world, wished to submit to all the world's judgment. The Duke answered that the Pope had no jurisdiction, except in matters of heresy. Notwithstanding the friendship between your Majesty and the Pope, I would not have gone so far in defending his Holiness, but that the conversation led me to it. My words were taken in good part, and the Duke said he had lately shown the ambassadors of France the seal or the tomb (le sceau ou la sepulture) of King Arthur, (I did not know of whom he spoke,) in which there was a writing, which I would see in a bill of parchment, which he took out of his purse, saying that he had had it copied out for me. This bill contained only the words "Patricius Arcturus, Britanni, Galli, Germani, Daci Imperator." I said I was sorry he was not also called Emperor of Asia, and that he had not left this King as his successor; for, as there was a vicissitude in all things, it was probable enough that a king of England subjugated part of the provinces there named, since from them had come men who had long ruled over this kingdom, and the line of William of Normandy still endured; and if from this he argued that they might still make conquests like the said Arthur, let him consider what had become of the Assyrians, Macedonians, Persians, &c. In the end I told him I thought the King would do well to allow execution of Papal mandates to be intimated to him and two or three persons whom the matter concerned, after the example of Philip father of Alexander the Great, who would not expel from his house one who continually reviled him, because he preferred that he should continue to revile him, and state his case, rather than that he should go publishing it throughout the world : for if the King hindered the execution here, the mandates would probably be printed and published everywhere. To this they made no reply. Advises that if the King persist, the mandates should be printed. Today the duke of Norfolk has notified the Nuncio of the penalties attending execution being made here against the King, and said that he was very much surprised, considering the good words his Holiness had held to card. Grammont, that he ordered the cause to be proceeded with, and further that he wished to make certain provisions and mandates injurious to the prerogative of the King and kingdom, seeing that he had long ago warned the Nuncio that the King would not proceed de facto in this affair, and there was less appearance of his proceeding in it now than ever, whatever they might say. The Nuncio had no leisure to make much reply, except that he knew nothing about the mandates; but if the Pope sent them to him to execute, he would face death in the service of his master. The Nuncio went today, at my request, to the archbishop of Canterbury, to exhort him to have regard to God, his conscience, and the Pope's authority. While they were together, there arrived the King's confessor, (fn. 3) one of the promoters of this affair; and the Archbishop could only say that the King had come in person to his house to induce him to comply with his wishes, but he would on no account disobey the Pope's prohibition, as he would declare more fully on Tuesday next. The Nuncio has not yet been able to obtain any answer to the brief (au brefz) which he has presented to the King touching the calling of a Council, and doubts if he will have any till they know the will of the French king.
The messenger who carried it to the king of Scotland has not yet returned, but is expected hourly. I hear the King was never in greater perplexity than since the last news from Rome, and that neither he nor the Lady sleeps at nights.
Yesterday the prelates were assembled to consider what was to be treated in Parliament; but no mention was made of the Queen's affair, which, taken with what the duke of Norfolk said to the Nuncio, shows that they will not put this matter forward.
It is thought that Parliament will last a very short time, and be prorogued. I am told that when John Joquin was on the point of departure, and his despatches were delivered to him, he demanded a memorandum which he had delivered to the King, and the secretary told him they would send it after him, for the King had it, and was then in bed. At which being very angry, he said there was no excuse for it, and that he would not go without it. They were obliged to wake the King to give it him, and when he got it back he threw it in the fire. I am also told that on the English ambassador desiring Francis to make a strict alliance with them, he answered that all pleasures and courtesies would be done to them, but they must not expect him to enter into war (mais que nestoit question dentendre en partir de guerre). The 4,000 or 5,000 crowns which were delivered a year ago to a German, as I wrote to you, have been employed in trying to procure opinions in Germany in the King's favor; but Luther and his followers have declared against him, which has increased the King's headache and restlessness. London, 13 Jan.
1547 – Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey is sentenced to death.He was an English aristocrat, and one of the founders of English Renaissance poetry. He was a first cousin of Catherine Howard and the son of Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk
Trial of Henry Earl of Surrey.
File of documents in Baga de Secretis Pouch XIV. as follows:
M. 15. Special Commission to Thomas lord Borough, Sir Edward Mountagu, Sir John Hynde and Sir Roger Towneshend, to inquire touching treasons etc., in the county of Norfolk. Westm., 31 Dec. 38 Hen. VIII. [Great Seal appended, much broken.]
M. 13. Precept by the above commissioners to the sheriff of Norfolk to summon a grand jury at Norwich castle 7 Jan. next. London, 1 Jan. 38 Hen. VIII. [Four seals appended, much injured.] Endd. as answered by Henry Hobart, sheriff.
M. 14. Jury panel annexed, viz., Anthony Gurney, William Brampton, John Berney, George Horsman, Ralph Shelton, Edmund Wode, Robert Rugge, William Rogers, Thomas Codde, Robert Lovedaie, Richard Sponer, William Drake, Thomas Aldriche, John Thetford, Thomas Hare and Henry Dengeyn.
M. 12. Sessions at Norwich castle, 7 Jan., at which (m. 11) the jury above named found the following true bill.
M. 9. Bill of indictment setting forth that whereas Parliament of 8 June to 18 July 28 Hen. VIII. enacted that whosoever, by words, writings, printing, or other external act, maliciously shall procure anything to the peril of the King's person or give occasion whereby the King or his successors might be disturbed in their possession of the Crown, etc. (Stat. 28 Hen. VIII. cap. 7, § 12) shall be guilty of high treason; And whereas Henry VIII. is true King of England, and Edward formerly king of England, commonly called Saynt Edward the Confessor, in right of the said realm of England, used certain arms and ensigns, viz., "asur a crosse flewry betwene fyve merlettes golde," belonging to the said King Edward and his progenitors in right of the Crown of England, which arms and ensigns are therefore appropriate to the King and to no other person; And whereas Edward now prince of England, the King's son, and heir apparent, bears, as heir apparent, the said arms and ensigns with three labels called "thre labelles sylver;" Nevertheless, one Henry Howard, late of Kennynggale, K.G., otherwise called Henry earl of Surrey, on 7 Oct. 38 Hen. VIII., at Kennynggale, in the house of Thomas duke of Norfolk, his father, openly used, and traitorously caused to be depicted, mixed and conjoined with his own arms and ensigns, the said arms and ensigns of the King, with "thre labelles sylver."
M. 10. Special commission of oyer and terminer to Henry Hoberthorn, mayor of London, Wriothesley, St. John, Russell, Hertford, Arundel, Essex, Lisle, Cheyney, Broun, Paget, Sir Ric. Lyster, Sir Edw. Mountagu, Sir Roger Cholmeley, Sir Edm. Mervyn, Sir Wm. Shelley, Sir Humph. Broun, Sir Thos. Bromeley, Sir John Hynde and Wm. Porteman, one of the justices of King's Bench, to hold sessions at the Guildhall of London to try, with a jury of Norfolk, the aforesaid indictment. Westm., 10 Jan. 38 Hen. VIII. [Fragment of Great Seal appended.]
M. 8. Precept of Hoberthorn, Wriothesley and their fellow justices to the Constable of the Tower to bring Surrey before them at the Guildhall, 13 Jan. next at 8 a.m. Dated 11 Jan. [Endorsed as answered by Sir John Gage constable of the Tower.]
M. 6. Precept to the sheriff of Norfolk for the return of the petty jury (24 men from the vicinage of Kennyngale) for the trial of Henry earl of Surrey. [Endorsed as answered by Henry Hubbert, sheriff.]
M. 7. Jury panel annexed, viz., Sir Wm. Paston, Sir James Bulleyn, Sir Francis Lovell, Sir Richard Gresham, Sir John Gresham, Sir John Clere, Sir Thomas Clere, Sir William Woodhouse, knights, Christopher Heydon, Nicholas le Straunge, Miles Hubbert, Henry Bedyngfeld, Robert Berney, John Berney of Reddham, Thomas Tyndall, William Buttes, sen., George Huggard, Thomas Derham, John Brews, Osbert Mounford, John Goddysalff, Edmund Lomnor, John Castell and Edmund Byllyngford, esquires. [First twelve marked sworn.]
M. 5. Writ of certiorari commanding Lord Borough and his fellow justices to certify the indictments into Chancery. Dated 11 Jan. 38 Hen. VIII.
M. 1-4. Record of pleadings at the Guildhall 13 Jan., reciting first the commission of 10 Jan. to Hoberthorn and his fellow justices, whereupon, on 11 Jan. they ordered Lord Borough, &c., to send the indictments, the constable of the Tower to produce the body and the sheriff to return a jury. Lord Chancellor Wriothesley delivered the indictment (recited) as found at Norwich castle 7 Jan., Surrey was brought to the bar by Sir John Gage, Constable of the Tower, and pleaded Not Guilty. Jury instanter. Verdict, Guilty, and what property the said Howard possessed the jury know not. Sentence, to be taken back to the Tower and thence led through the city of London to the gallows at Tiborne, hanged, disembowelled, beheaded
1584 – Death of Thomas Wentworth, 2nd Baron Wentworth.He was the eldest son of Thomas Wentworth, 1st Baron Wentworth and Margaret Fortescue. He studied at St John's College, Cambridge
1593 – Death of Sir Henry Neville,he was a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to King Henry VIII.
1602-Death of Sir John Forster, English military commander and Warden of the Middle Marches.