QUEEN MARY SAT UNDER HER CANOPY OF ESTATE AT WHITEHALL, A slight figure, with light-coloured eyes.1 Her cousin Margaret Douglas, and her half-sister Elizabeth, watched her from a gallery and enjoyed the music Mary had ordered for the feast. There were harps and choirboys to entertain the new Imperial ambassadors, who had just arrived that October 1553. People wondered if they had come to arrange a marriage for the queen. Aged thirty-seven, Mary had grown accustomed to spinsterhood and claimed she preferred the single life, but she would need to choose a husband, and soon, if she was to have children.
The popular choice of husband for Mary was a great-grandson of Edward IV called Edward Courtenay. Royal and English, he might have been the perfect candidate had he not been imprisoned in the Tower since 1538, the year his father, the Marquess of Exeter, had been executed by Henry VIII for his pro-papal loyalties. Courtenay had been only twelve then, and when he had emerged from the Tower in August, aged twenty-seven, he was a damaged man. Like Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, who had grown up in the Tower in the reign of Henry VII, Courtenay was childish and petulant. Mary did not appear at all interested in him as a husband, and so Courtenay began annoying Elizabeth instead, claiming there were ‘amourettes’ between them.2 What was not yet public knowledge was that Mary was already considering a marriage proposal she had received a few days earlier from Charles V’s son, her cousin Philip of Spain.3 Mary was concerned that her country was threatened by French ambitions, and while Courtenay was of ‘small power and authority’, she believed Philip would ‘be able from his own resources to prevent an enemy attack’.4 Before Mary would accept the proposal, however, she wanted Philip to agree that he would have no role in the government of her kingdom. This was an issue that the new ambassadors would have to grapple with, and indeed accept, before negotiations progressed. Meanwhile Mary was also considering who should succeed her if she proved unable to have children.
Mary confided to one of the Imperial ambassadors that she would not allow her current heir, Elizabeth, ‘to succeed [to the throne] because of her heretical opinions, illegitimacy and characteristics in which she resembled her mother’. Sitting in the gallery alongside Mary’s contemporary, Margaret Douglas, the twenty-year-old was a vision of shining youth, her hair the same corn gold as her late brother Edward’s, her long face, sallow skin and black eyes those of the mercurial, shamed, Anne Boleyn. Since Jane Grey’s imprisonment Elizabeth had become the new focus for the Protestant opposition and it was a role she seemed to flaunt. She continued to affect the plain dress she had worn during her brother’s reign, her servants were all Protestant, and Mary complained she ‘talked every day with heretics and lent an ear to all their evil designs’.5
Mary wanted to name Margaret Douglas as her heir in Elizabeth’s place, but she had been warned that overturning the Act of Succession would be extremely problematic. Although Elizabeth remained a bastard under parliamentary statute and canon law (as Mary did not), she was still King Henry’s daughter. The importance of that had been underscored by Mary’s own victory over Jane Grey.
Mary’s former rival remained in the Tower but, in contrast to her attitude to Elizabeth, Mary was putting the best possible complexion on all Jane’s former actions and a future pardon was expected. It was assumed Mary was acting from feminine instincts for mercy. In fact Mary’s motives were hard-headed. It remained important to Mary that people ascribe the attempt to exclude her from the throne to John Dudley’s ambitions, not Edward’s wishes, and that peace was re-established within the royal family. To this end the Grey family were cast almost as Mary’s co-victims. Harry Grey had been pardoned in July and although the Imperial ambassadors had dissuaded Mary from pardoning Jane too, she persisted in describing Jane as an innocent dupe.6 Mary had always claimed Edward was a puppet of the adults around him. If it were accepted that Jane had been a Dudley puppet, it would support her contention that Edward’s religious settlement and its abolition of the Henrician Mass had been illegal, since it was implemented when he was a minor and too young to know his own mind; and that his Device for the Succession, also written when he was a minor, was in reality John Dudley’s Device.
Venetian reports, later written up by three Italians, include what may be a garbled account of a deposition Jane made in the Tower, aimed at securing her pardon. These repeat the official line that Jane’s reign was all the fault of the Dudleys, with Jane forced to accept the throne with many tears. The French went so far as to claim that Jane had said all along that Mary was the rightful queen. Further stories circulated suggesting that when the crown jewels had been brought to Jane she had expressed shock that a crown was also to be made for Guildford, and when she had bravely insisted she would only make him Duke of Clarence, Guildford and his mother had continued to pressure Jane into having him declared king. This was all nonsense. It had been fully expected that Guildford would be granted the title of king, most likely in the September parliament (the two subsequent consorts of reigning English queens were both given the title).7 He had already been referred to as such. But there are no sources written before Jane’s overthrow that suggest she was under any pressure to pre-empt Parliament’s decision on this matter.
The Imperial ambassadors warned Mary that pardoning Jane would risk ‘scandal and danger’, but to Mary the new focus on Elizabeth suggested that Protestants saw Jane as a busted flush, and she had no wish to taint her reputation with the execution of a young girl. Jane was due to be tried for treason in November, and Mary intended that the trial play a role in the sixteen-year-old’s rehabilitation. In Tudor England treason trials were more about advertising guilt than establishing it, and since Jane clearly had committed treason she would certainly be found guilty. Mary intended to then pardon Jane in recognition that she had been manipulated and as a demonstration of royal mercy and power. These plans began to go awry, however, as the true nature of the Greys’ opposition to Mary resurfaced.
In early November, Harry Grey led the parliamentary opposition in the Lords to the repeal of the Edwardian religious legislation, which he had done so much to promote. On 13 November Jane too chose to advertise her religious sympathies. That morning she left the Tower to walk in procession to the Guildhall where the trial was to take place. A man carrying an axe led the way, as a reminder that the prisoners were being tried for a capital crime. Guildford was dressed dashingly in a black velvet suit slashed with white satin. Jane, behind him, had chosen plain black, and, strikingly, she was carrying an open prayer book in her hands with another, covered in black velvet, hanging from her waist.8 It was a public statement of Protestant piety. Transcripts of Jane’s trial do not survive, but it was said she remained composed even as judgement was read and she was condemned to be burned at the stake – the default punishment for all women convicted of treason.9
Mary focused her anger on Harry Grey and, anxious to protect his daughter, he duly apologised for the trouble he had caused in Parliament. He also withdrew his vociferous opposition to the Spanish marriage, which, it had emerged, was to go ahead. The queen responded graciously and in December the conditions of Jane’s imprisonment were relaxed. But although Jane enjoyed walking in the Queen’s Garden in the Tower, the teenager was also horrified when, on 15 December, the Mass was re-established by royal proclamation. From the Tower Jane composed an open letter to a former tutor who had recently reconverted to Catholicism. The letter described him (and by implication all Catholics) as ‘the deformed imp of the devil’, and called on good people to make a stand against the Mass, which she described as no better than a form of satanic cannibalism. ‘Christ’, Jane reminded her readers, ‘came to set one against another’, and she exhorted them to ‘Return, return again unto Christ’s war.’10
Whether or not Jane intended a literal call to arms, her father was now plotting with a group of like-minded Protestant gentry to rebel against Mary, prevent the Spanish marriage and the legalisation of Catholic ceremonies. They did not plan to restore Jane as queen, however. They recognised the English people wanted a Tudor and intended that Mary should be replaced with Elizabeth, who was to be married to Courtenay. Mary I was right: her sister Elizabeth now posed a dangerous threat. Harry Grey may have feared for his daughter in the Tower, but he knew she could not be judged guilty of the revolt and believed that Mary’s pardon of his earlier crimes proved she was no ruthless Henry VIII. She would surely spare Jane. His allies also assured him that as soon as their revolt succeeded they would free his daughter and imprison Mary in her place.
Mary’s seventy-four-year-old Lord Chamberlain, and a few poorly armed members of the guard, were beyond the outer gates of St James’s Palace when they came under rebel attack.11 As they ran back to the palace the old man fell in the icy mud. His armour of steel plates sewn on to cloth weighed him down, but his men hauled him to his feet as they fled on.12 Mary, in the gallery by the gatehouse, could see them running back into the courtyard, and heard her ladies screaming ‘We shall all be destroyed this night!’ Her Guard battered at the doorway of the hall before running on through the kitchen and back ways, slamming doors, and seeking their escape at the Watergate. Shouts of ‘Treason! Treason!’ punctuated the clatter as word spread that the royal commander, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, had gone over to the rebels.13 Yet the porters, who were in charge of palace security, proved both loyal and brave, closing the gates under a shower of rebel arrows.
The planned revolt of Harry Grey and his allies, intended for March, had been exposed by 21 January. The risings had gone off early and Harry Grey’s attempt to raise the Midlands with the rallying cry ‘Resistance to the Spaniard’ had failed. But in Kent it had been a different story. The London militia had deserted en masse to Thomas Wyatt (son of the poet). The Privy Council had urged Mary to leave London. Instead, a week earlier, on 1 February 1554, she had given the speech of her life to City officials at London’s Guildhall. ‘I was wedded to the realm’, she had said in her deep, loud voice, ‘the spousal ring whereof I wear on my finger, and it ever has, and never shall be left off.’ Her subjects, she told the City worthies, were her children, and ‘if the subjects may be loved as a mother doth her child, then assure yourselves that I, your sovereign lady and your queen, do earnestly love and favour you’.14 If Parliament did not think her marriage to Philip of Spain beneficial she would not go through with it, she promised. The speech was greeted with loud cheers – but had it been enough?
‘What a sight is this to see the queen’s chamber full of armed men; the like was never seen nor heard of’, the women complained.15 Mary had only about seventy experienced soldiers with her at St James’s Palace and they included Protestants such as Edward Underhill, father of Jane Grey’s godson, Guildford, baptised on the last day of Jane’s reign. Having done her best to rally London’s citizenry at the Guildhall seven days earlier, Mary now had to rally these men in an impromptu speech made from the gallery window. They were, she told the soldiers, ‘gentlemen in whom only she trusted’, and asked them to stay close to the palace for her security.16 Her words appealed to the old chivalric values at the core of which was the protection of defenceless women. As her handful of personal defenders began to march up and down beneath her window, Mary knew that, nevertheless, her humiliation and death could be imminent.
The scene in London remained confused, but there were no further attacks on the palace and in the late afternoon it became clear that the rebels were defeated. As the rooms in the Tower filled up with new prisoners the time came to make some hard decisions about those already there, amongst them Jane and her husband. Already condemned at their trials, Mary had signed their death warrant that morning. It was possible that Mary would, once again, show mercy and allow the warrants to lapse. Yet her long-advertised claims that the Greys were merely victims of Dudley ambition now looked foolish, as well as way off mark. Stories would emerge claiming Mary was persuaded only with difficulty to confirm the executions of the young couple. But then queens were expected to be merciful, and although Mary sent Jane her personal chaplain in the hopes of gaining her conversion, becoming a Catholic had not saved John Dudley.
Jane was, in any case, set on martyrdom. The brave and passionate teenager wrote down her conversation with Mary’s chaplain so it might be used to stiffen Protestant resolve after her death. She also composed a farewell letter to her thirteen-year-old sister, Lady Katherine Grey, which she wrote on the blank pages of her Greek New Testament. Such books were treasured objects so it guaranteed the letter would be preserved and read as her last testament. The letter warned Katherine that if she accepted the Catholic faith, ‘God will deny you and shorten your days.’ The damnation of the apostate would await her. ‘As touching my death, rejoice as I do’, Jane continued, ‘for I am assured that I shall for losing a mortal life find an immortal felicity’; ‘Farewell dear sister’, her letter concluded, ‘your loving sister, Jane Dudley.’
It fell on the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, to explain why the harshest punishment was necessary. That Sunday he preached a public sermon before the queen. After the death of Henry VIII, heresy had been preached in England, he reminded his congregation, and, against the Protestant doctrine of an elect predestined to heaven, he argued that God had given man free will and good works were a means to heaven. It was heretics, Gardiner reminded his listeners, who had threatened the queen in 1553. Mary had been merciful then, but from this ‘open rebellion was grown’. He asked ‘that she would now be merciful to the body of the commonwealth’ and that ‘the rotten and hurtful members thereof’ be ‘cut off and consumed’.17 As his congregation were invited to pray for Edward VI and the souls of the faithful departed – as only Catholics did – they were in no doubt that ‘sharp and cruel execution’ would follow.
Jane composed a final note for her father in a prayer book she shared with Guildford. Her husband would be much maligned in later myth, but she describes him in her own hand to her father as one who would be in heaven with her, as a co-martyr: ‘though it has pleased God to take away two of your children, yet think not, I most humbly beseech your grace, that you have lost them, but trust that we, by losing this mortal life, have won an immortal life . . . Your grace’s humble daughter, Jane Dudley.’ There is no finger pointing at Guildford for anything in the past and Jane uses her married name.18 Just before ten in the morning of Monday 12 February 1554, Jane saw the ‘comely, virtuous and goodly gentleman’ she had married being led to the scaffold on Tower Hill.19 There was no priest to attend on Guildford, which suggests he had refused one. He simply said his prayers and laid himself flat on the block. It took one blow to take off his head.
Jane had the misfortune to see Guildford’s body brought back in a cart, his head wrapped in a bloody cloth. Bravely Jane kept her composure as she walked behind the Lieutenant of the Tower, in the last procession of her life to the scaffold within the privacy of the Tower walls. Jane had donned the black dress she had worn to her trial and again she read from a prayer book. There was a final message for the lieutenant inscribed in it: ‘there is a time to be born, and a time to die; and the day of death is better than the day of our birth. Yours, as the Lord knows, as a friend, Jane Dudley.’20 Executions are always grim affairs, and the brutal killing of this brilliant young girl was particularly horrible. There was a terrible moment at the end when Jane, blindfolded and feeling desperately for the block, was heard crying out ‘What shall I do? Where is it?’ Eventually someone – possibly the executioner – stepped forward to guide her. As Jane died in a fountain of blood other scaffolds were already being built all over London. Further executions began the next day and Elizabeth was summoned to London.