Preface
1. Inventories of the Wardrobe Plate Chapel Stuff etc. of Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond. . . . Edited with a Memoir and Letters of the Duke of Richmond, ed. J.G. Nichols.
2. E. Cherbury, Lord Herbert, Life and Reign of King Henry the Eighth, p. 165.
3. E. Barnwell, Perrot Notes, Some Account of the Various Branches of the Perrot Family (1867), p. 40.
4. D. Edwards, The Edwardes Legacy (Baltimore, 1992), p. 22.
5. E. Ives, Anne Boleyn, p. 250.
6. Writing in March 1997 Anthony Hoskins put forward a new theory which used revised ages for Henry and Catherine in an attempt to prove beyond any doubt that they were both Henry VIII’s children. A. Hoskins, ‘Mary Boleyn Carey’s Children – Offspring of King Henry VIII’, Genealogist’s Magazine, 25 (1997), n.9.
7. British Library (BL), Harleian MS 252, f. 26.
Chapter One
1. Public Record Office (PRO), E36/215, f. 250.
2. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J.S. Brewer et al., p. 395.
3. For a full discussion of the problems Henry VII faced in securing his throne see S.B. Chimes, Henry VII (1987), pp. 68–94.
4. Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, ed. J. Gairdner (2 vols, 1861, 1863), I, pp. 233–4.
5. One of the points that does not seem to have been a particular problem was Archbishop Warham’s concern over the validity of the six-year-old papal dispensation, which allowed for the fact that Katherine had had sexual intercourse with Arthur. D. Loades, The Politics of Marriage (Stroud, 1994), p .17.
6. N. Samman, ‘The Henrician Court During Cardinal Wolsey’s Ascendancy c. 1514–1529’ (unpublished Ph.D., University of Wales, 1988), p. 175.
7. Calendar of Letters, Dispatches and State Papers (CSP) Relating to Negotiations between England and Spain 1485–1558, ed. G.A. Bergenroth, et al. (1862–1954) Supplement, p. 285. G. Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon (1971), pp. 110–12. W. Compton, History of the Comptons of Compton Wynyates, p. 15.
8. The Blounts of Kinlet were the descendants of Sir John Blount through his first marriage in 1347 to Isolda, the daughter and heir of Sir Thomas de Mountjoy. The Blounts, the Lords Mountjoy, were the descendants of his second marriage to Eleanor, the daughter of Lord Beauchamp of Somerset.
9. PRO, E36/215, f. 270. A. Somerset, Ladies in Waiting, p. 15.
10. Shropshire Record Office (SRO), 1878/3 29.
11. SRO 1878/3 27.
12. W.S. Childe-Pemberton, Elizabeth Blount and Henry VIII, p. 20.
13. BL, Cotton MS Titus A XIII, f. 187.
14. S.J. Gunn, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, c. 1484–1545, p. 6.
15. BL, Additional MSS 28585, f. 43.
16. The report came from the Imperial agent James Banisius and is not corroborated by any other source. David Loades is probably correct when he suggests that if there was a child it was ‘almost certainly dead, and many weeks premature.’ D. Loades, The Politics of Marriage, p. 24.
17. BL, Cott. MS Caligula D VI, f. 155.
18. In 1514 Charles Brandon had already contracted four marriages. He had put aside the first wife, Anne Browne, when she was pregnant with their daughter, so he could marry her aunt Margaret Mortimer, a wealthy heiress. He then had that marriage annulled in order to remarry Anne and, after her death, had made plans to marry his eight-year-old ward. Despite rumours of his interest in Margaret of Savoy, in 1515 he actually married the king’s sister, Mary Tudor.
19. Or to be exact ‘una grandissima ribald et infame sopre tutte’, Letters and Papers, X, 450. E. Ives, Anne Boleyn, p. 34.
20. PRO, SP1/70, 61. SP1/10, 163.
21. For what little is known of Jane Poppingcourt’s career in England see Samman, ‘Henrician Court’, p. 147. W. Richardson, Mary Tudor, The White Queen, p. 14.
22. PRO, E36/215 f. 449.
23. E. Hall, Chronicle Containing the History of England, ed. H. Ellis (1809), p. 703.
24. Ibid., p. 595.
25. Wolsey’s two children by ‘Mistress Lark’ were a son, Thomas Winter, who received numerous clerical preferments and a daughter, Dorothy, who secured a place in the wealthy convent at Shaftesbury Abbey. P. Gwyn, The King’s Cardinal (1990), p. 351.
26. N. Samman, ‘Henrician Court’, p. 403.
27. G. Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon, p. 132.
28. H.S. Burke, Historical Portrait of the Tudor Dynasty (4 vols, 1879–83), I, p. 178. Letters and Papers, III, ii, Revels Accounts, p. 1559.
29. PRO, Durham 3, Portf. 177, p. 55.
30. W.C. Richardson, ‘The Surveyor of the King’s Prerogative’, English Historical Review, (1941), p. 60.
31. Letters and Papers, III, ii, 2356. (18).
32. R. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn, p. 49.
33. N. Samman, ‘Henrician Court,’ p. 186.
34. BL, Cott. Otho, CX, f. 234.
35. PRO, SP1/55 15.
36. PRO, SP1/55 14.
37. Inventory of the Wardrobe of Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, 1531 [17], Historical Manuscript Commision, Longleat Miscellaneous Manuscripts (microfilm, reel 2) 97. The young Lord Tailbois would also receive other items of his half-brother’s wardrobe in 1536. J.G. Nichols, Inventories of the Wardrobe, 1ff.
38. Alice Perrers was the infamous mistress of Edward III whose influence was matched only by her ambition.
39. E. Ives, Anne Boleyn, p. 20.
40. 14 & 15 Henry VIII. C.34.
41. BL, Add. MSS 46457, f. 56 ff.
42. Letters and Papers, IV, iii, 5750.
Chapter Two
1. S. Thurley, The Royal Palaces of Tudor England, p. 119.
2. BL, Cott. MS Tiberius E.VIII, f. 206. The earls who were chosen to accompany Fitzroy during this part of the ceremony were those who ranked first in the order of precedence. See H. Miller, Henry VIII and the English Nobility, p. 20.
3. BL, Egerton MS 2642, f. 7.
4. Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, the bastard son of Edward IV, acquired his title in the reign of Henry VIII, through his marriage to Elizabeth, the daughter of Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle.
5. John Beaufort was the eldest son of four illegitimate children born to John of Gaunt and his mistress Katherine Swynford. As the product of an adulterous affair the children were not automatically legitimated when their parents married in 1399. However, when Gaunt successfully petitioned the Pope for a dispensation their legitimacy was confirmed. C. Given-Wilson and A. Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England, pp. 147–53.
6. M. Jones and M. Underwood, The King’s Mother, pp. 71–2.
7. In Matilda’s defence, it must be said that Henry I created problems that any successor would be hard pressed to deal with. The celebrated peace of his reign belied tensions that were held in check through terror of the king. His personal government had been harsh and oppressive and it was inevitable that there would be a reaction on his death. For an account of Matilda’s life see M. Chibnall, The Empress Matilda.
8. In his examination of Buckingham’s rebellion against Richard III, Michael Hicks suggested that ‘while it is easy to deduce . . . that the new unnamed king proclaimed at Bodmin was Henry Tudor, it need not have been. It could, for example, have been Buckingham’, M. Hicks, Richard III, p. 158.
9. For a full account of the events which led to Buckingham’s downfall see J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 120–3.
10. Gilbert Tailbois was listed as a member of the king’s chamber in the subsidy records of 1527 and was still at court in April 1529 when his mother complained he should ‘go home and see good order kept in the county’. PRO, E179/69/2. PRO, SP1/53, f. 158.
11. Writing in 1973, Mortimer Levine proposed that ‘the king’s bitterness over the defeat of his French ambitions’ was the inspiration for Richmond’s elevation. M. Levine, Tudor Dynastic Problems, p. 54.
12. CSP Venetian, IV, 1053.
13. R. Wernham, Before the Armada, p. 111.
14. The marriage was supposed to take place when Mary was twelve years old in February 1528. Yet at eleven Mary was still considered ‘so thin, spare and small as to make it impossible to be married for the next three years’. This suggests a degree of physical immaturity, which would have further delayed the prospect of children. It was not difficult for Isabella and her dowry of one million ducats to be a more tempting prospect.
15. Letters and Papers, IV, i, 1371.
16. PRO, SP1/35, pp. 185–92. That Richmond was termed ‘Lord Henry Fitzroy’ is evidence that the list was drawn up prior to 18 June 1525. Yet the contents can be identified as in use in his household at Sheriff Hutton.
17. J. Palsgrave, The Comedy of Acolastus, p. xxvii. His patron was, it seems, a distant relation.
18. Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI, ed. W.K. Jordan, p. 3.
19. BL, Harl. MS 304 125b. However, the register of the Order only records the elections of the Earl of Arundel and Lord Roos on St George’s Day 1525. J. Anstis, The Register of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (2 vols, 1724), II, pp. 369–70.
20. C. Given-Wilson and A. Curteis, Royal Bastards of Medieval England, pp. 162–73.
21. ‘Even if the king could canvass enough support for such a move, there was a strong argument that it was prejudicial to the rights of the king’s lawful children. Not just those he had already, but those he might yet have – by his present wife or any subsequent wives. Therefore, it was beyond the competence of the king or the king and parliament to do so.’ H. Nenner, The Right to be King, p. 39. The birth of Edward in 1537 justified this caution.
22. CSP Venetian, III, 1052.
23. While the Dukedom of Somerset had most recently been held by Henry VII’s youngest son Edmund, who had died in childhood, it was almost certainly chosen for him because of the family connection.
24. The manors were: Englishcombe, Shepton Mallet, Midsomer Norton, Melton Falconbridge, Laverton, Farrington Gurney, Stoke under Hampton, Welton and West Harptree. G. Haslam, ‘An Administrative Study of the Duchy of Cornwall 1500–1650’ unpublished Ph.D thesis, Louisiana State University, 1970, pp. 123–5.
25. Sir John Arundel of Lanherne was also to be included, but cried off pleading lack of sufficient notice. It seems likely that Wolsey suggested his name, since Sir John’s second son was in the Cardinal’s service. Arundel was probably not included in the king’s original design. H. Miller, English Nobility p. 22.
26. For a discussion of the other elevations see R. Warnicke, Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn, p. 45. Normally, the next heir would have been the son of Henry’s eldest sister, Margaret, the young James V of Scotland. However, the terms of her marriage to James IV, in which she had relinquished her hereditary rights, had in effect disqualified him. The same did not necessarily apply to her daughter from her second marriage, Margaret Douglas, who, conveniently, had also been born in England.
27. PRO, SP1/39, f. 17.
28. These included Chief Justice of the forest beyond the Trent and a commission as Lieutenant-General north of the Trent.
29. Prince Arthur’s court at Ludlow, in the reign of Henry VII, had also been primarily to oversee his own estates. Yet his interests as Prince of Wales had provided a natural link to the authority of the king.
30. For a complete history of the council see, R. Reid, The King’s Council in the North.
31. Ibid., p. 103.
32. BL, Vespasian MS F III, f.18.b. Although calendared in Letters and Papers, IV (i), 2010 and 2011 as 4 March 1526, they cannot have been written in that year if Richmond was in the south. His skill with a pen also suggests a rather later date.
33. Not even Mary’s parallel council at Ludlow could duplicate this experiment in bureaucratic government. Mary’s status as a royal princess required that she was attended by persons of rank and her council included a countess, a marquess, a bishop and a lord among its members.
34. M. Jones and M. Underwood, The King’s Mother, p. 83.
35. State Papers (SP) Henry VIII, IV, 135.
36. PRO, E101/424/18.
37. SP Henry VIII, IV, 135.
Chapter Three
1. SP Henry VIII, IV, 144.
2. Palsgrave was replaced on Richmond’s council in April 1526 by William Bathorpe. R. Reid, Council in the North, p. 104.
3. I can find no evidence to support John Gough Nichols’ suggestion that Richmond employed a whipping-boy, even in an honorary capacity. J.G. Nichols, Literary Remains of King Edward the Sixth, p. lxxiv.
4. PRO, SP1/46, p. 169.
5. The Lisle Letters, ed. M. St Clare Byrne, I, p. 182. PRO, E24/15/12, p.1 m.8.
6. PRO, SP1/40, p. 96.
7. BL, Cott. Appendix L, f. 68.
8. Their actual relationship was a little more distant. The Pope Giulio de Medici had a natural son, Giuliano de Medici, who was the great-uncle of Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino and Florence, who was Catherine’s father.
9. Henry agreed to join the League of Cognac and give up his ancient titles in France in return for a pension and Francis’ agreement to marry. An earlier demand that Francis should give him Boulogne was dropped. D. Loades, Mary Tudor, A Life, pp. 47–9.
10. SP Henry VIII, I, 127.
11. During the negotiations Wolsey asked that the duc d’Orléans should come to England and live among his future subjects so that they could grow to love him.
12. Getting wind of the proposal the Venetian ambassador reported that Henry VIII was to pay 500,000 ducats for the marriage. CSP Venetian, IV, 172.
13. In 1499 the King of France, Louis XII, had put aside his consort Jeanne, in order to marry the widow of his predecessor. D. Loades, Politics of Marriage, p. 3.
14. H. Miller, Henry VIII and the English Nobility, p. 217.
15. BL, Cott. Appendix L, F. 68.
16. Richmond’s own links with the area were not immediately severed, since deputies, such as Sir Thomas Clifford, the Under-Warden and Under-Captain of Berwick-upon-Tweed continued to serve in his name.
Chapter Four
1. R. Warnicke, Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn, p. 195.
2. For the best arguments of the canon law of Henry’s divorce see J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp. 163–97.
3. G.E. de Parmiter, The King’s Great Matter, p. 4.
4. PRO, Prob, 11/20.
5. A lack of evidence makes it difficult to reconstruct exactly how the board worked, although David Quinn sees some similarity with later procedures in Ireland where vice-regal authority was sometimes entrusted to a group of lords justices. D. Quinn, ‘Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and his Connection with Ireland 1529–30’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 12 (1935) p. 175
6. CSP Spanish, III, ii, 632.
7. S. Thurley, The Royal Palaces of Tudor England, p. 189.
8. For a fuller discussion of the Duke of Norfolk’s role in Richmond’s lands and household affairs see chapter six.
9. E. Ives, Anne Boleyn, p. 259.
10. A second equally thorough inventory of Richmond’s goods was taken at his death in July 1536. The procedure was also followed for the seizure of assets under attainder.
11. PRO, SP1/111, p. 221.
12. Angered by this intervention of her niece (who after all was not yet her queen) in so intimate a family matter, the duchess, rather unwisely, made her feelings known. Anne responded in kind and the duchess was obliged to withdraw from the court.
13. Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, had been granted her title in her own right in 1513. Yet in her case the circumstances were rather different since she held it in descent from her maternal grandfather.
14. Estimates for the number of Anne’s ladies vary between ten and thirty. E. Ives, Anne Boleyn, p. 199. If the ‘lady Mary’ listed was not Anne Boleyn’s sister but her cousin Mary Howard, her betrothal to the Duke of Richmond might explain why she was given precedence over Lady Derby and the others. However, the view that the report was deliberately couched to suggest Henry’s daughter was there would still be equally valid. D. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 67.
15. E. Hall, Chronicle, p. 792.
16. Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BN), Fonds Dupuys 546.
17. BN, MS Français 15629.
18. After the death of his brother, Francis on 10 August 1536, Henri became the dauphin, and his brother Charles succeeded to his title of Orléans.
19. BN, Fonds Dupuys 547, f. 172.
20. Since the couple were related, Richmond, being a descendant of Elizabeth Woodville, whose sister Katherine, Duchess of Buckingham, was Mary’s great-grandmother, the couple sought and obtained a papal dispensation for consanguinity.
21. In the same vein Anne also suggested that the Earl of Surrey might marry Mary Tudor.
22. R. Southall ‘The Devonshire Manuscript Collection of Early Tudor Poetry 1532–41’, The Review of English Studies, 15 (1964) p. 10.
23. CSP Spanish, V, 87.
24. SP Henry VIII, II, 108.
Chapter Five
1. These were 25 Henry VIII c.19, confirmation of the 1532 submission of the clergy, 25 Henry VIII c.20, suppression of annates, 25 Henry VIII c.28, Princess Dowager and 25 Henry VIII c.22 succession.
2. 25 Henry VIII c.22.
3. M. Levine, ‘Henry VIII’s Use of his Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdictions in his Great Causes of Matrimony, Legitimacy and Succession’ The Historical Journal, 11 (1967), p. 6.
4. Several times Anne offered to intercede for Mary with her father in return for her acceptance of her legal position as queen. E. Ives, Anne Boleyn, pp. 247–9.
5. Letters and Papers, VIII, 909.
6. E. Ives, Anne Boleyn, p. 253.
7. John Uvedale served at various times as secretary to Norfolk, Anne Boleyn and Richmond. William Brereton was the son of Sir Randolph Brereton of Malpas, a close associate of Norfolk.
8. For an account of this progress see chapter six.
9. D. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 93.
10. R. Warnicke, Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn, pp. 191–233
11. CSP Spanish, V, 13. Henry’s extreme reaction can really only be explained if the infant lost in 1534 had also been a son.
12. Letters and Papers, X, 494. In the event the meeting did not go ahead.
13. For more on Brereton’s downfall and its impact on Richmond’s position as a marcher lord see chapter six.
14. CSP Spanish, V, 55.
15. 34 Henry VIII c.40.
16. In fact it would take the 1536 Act of Succession (28 Henry VIII c.7) to confirm both Mary’s and Elizabeth’s bastard status in law. If he chose, Henry could still claim either of them had been born in good faith. Yet since everyone acted as if they were indeed illegitimate, this may well have been more of an oversight than actual policy.
17. CSP Spanish, V, ii, 70.
18. CSP Spanish, V, ii, 61.
19. The unfinished portrait of the Duchess of Richmond by Hans Holbein was perhaps commissioned to mark this momentous step. If the drawing was to commemorate their marriage in 1533, it seems strange that the work was interrupted.
20. S. Thurley, Royal Palaces, p. 36.
21. M. Tucker, The Life of Thomas Howard 1443–1524, p. 25.
22. 28 Henry VIII c. 7.
23. CSP Spanish, V, ii, 91.
24. Since Richmond had attended the previous sessions of parliament with such regularity it does seem worth noting that he was completely absent from business in 1536. This might be excused as no longer a necessary part of his education, although nor does it seem that he attended the Neville marriage celebrations held at Shoreditch on 3 July 1536, although the greater part of the court, including Norfolk, Suffolk, the Earl of Surrey and the king were present.
25. CSP Spanish, V, ii, 71.
26. For a detailed revision of the accounts of Edward’s last illness see J. Loach, Edward VI, eds G. Bernard and P. Williams (1999), pp. 159–62.
27. I am grateful to S.J. Gunn for his advice on this point.
Chapter Six
1. Richmond was entitled to a pursuivant in his capacity as Earl of Nottingham. As a duke he was entitled to a herald. At his elevation in 1525 the Somerset Herald had sported Richmond’s new coat-of-arms.
2. The lands had reverted to the crown after the recent death of the Duchess of Buckingham. That Ambrose had formerly been in the Duke of Buckingham’s service may be a feature in the gift.
3. 22 Henry VIII c.17.
4. PRO, SP1/49, p. 135.
5. Rather sooner than he could have anticipated, Sir Giles Strangeways subsequently obtained the stewardship in Somerset when the lands reverted to the crown after Richmond’s death in 1536.
6. R. Davies, The Fawkes of York in the Sixteenth Century, eds J.B. and J.G. Nichols (1850), p. 9.
7. S.J. Gunn, ‘The Regime of Charles, Duke of Suffolk, in North Wales and the Reform of Welsh Government 1509–25’, Welsh History Review, 12 (1985), p. 487.
8. R. Reid, The King’s Council in the North p. 135.
9. In a covenant made at the time of her daughter Ursula Pole’s marriage to Henry, Lord Stafford, Margaret agreed to pay a further 1,000 marks if she could ‘get back certain lands from the King’. Calendar of Manuscripts of George Alan Lowndes Esq, p. 584.
10. PRO, SP1/50, p. 4.
11. PRO, SP1/69, p. 273.
12. George Lawson was evidently still enjoying his fee in May 1536, when he wrote to the Duke of Norfolk to protest at the possibility of again being made to relinquish it. Letters and Papers, X, 935.
13. Stephen Gardiner’s biographer also sees his connections to Norfolk as a factor in deciding to invoke Richmond’s assistance. G. Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic, p. 62.
14. It has been argued that ‘it may even be that Brereton had seen a chance to fish in troubled waters and so initiated the enquiry himself in the name of the fifteen year old duke’. E. Ives, ‘Letters and Accounts of William Brereton of Malpas’, The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 116 (1976) p. 39.
15. Biddlecombe also had links with the duke’s council, through his association with Sir Giles Strangeways and was employed by the duke. As a former bailiff and mayor he already represented a respectable candidate, but this does not preclude that Richmond’s influence was a factor.
Chapter Seven
1. R. Strong, The English Renaissance Miniature, p. 40.
2. A God’s penny was a relief of a silver penny. A gressom was two years’ rent. Both were customary charges on top of all normal payments in some areas of the north when a new lord took possession of his holdings. R. Reid, Council in the North (1921), pp. 135–6.
3. PRO, SP1/128 p. 92.
4. BL, Cott. Titus B I, f.383c. It is possible that the actual amount was supposed to be 1,000 marks. The valuation of the estates she was ultimately granted is listed as ‘Clear total 744l 10s 9d ob, which exceeds 1,000 marks by 77l 17s 5d ob’ (an ob was half a penny). Letters and Papers, XVI, 401.
5. He was free by October when he met with up with his father. Letters and Papers, XII, ii, 839.
6. PRO, SP1/111, p. 221.
7. This present danger ‘made the military abilities of the House of Howard absolutely essential to Henry VIII. Consequently, even the slightest trace of doubt disappeared from the king’s attitude towards them.’ E. Casady, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, p. 70.
8. Far from being an innocent young girl, Catherine Howard had already had a string of past relationships, including the musician Henry Mannox, the gentleman pensioner Francis Dereham and a budding romance with Thomas Culpepper, a member of the King’s privy chamber, when Henry first expressed his interest in her. In contrast, everything about Anne of Cleves’ former life indicates she was indeed a virgin.
9. The account given by Edward Rogers is simply a report of what he had been told by Carew and should not be taken to suggest that he was an independent witness to the scene.
10. E. Cherbury, Life and Reign of King Henry the Eighth, p. 626.
11. PRO, SP1/227, f. 123
12. In particular, the evidence of Christopher Barker, Garter King of Arms, was both flawed and retrospective. The fact that Barker was knighted shortly after Surrey’s execution seems to indicate his complicity. Letters and Papers, XXI, i, 1425.
13. For a fuller account of the details of the charges relating to Surrey’s armorial bearings see E. Casady, Henry Howard, pp. 194–202.
14. The subsidy returns are not the most accurate guide to wealth, since it was a positive advantage to be assessed at less than you had, in order to pay less tax. However, Mary was not particularly in favour at this time and therefore this probably represents a reasonable assessment of her possessions. The baroness was Elizabeth, Lady Tailbois, the daughter and only surviving issue of Elizabeth Blount and Gilbert, Lord Tailbois.
15. PRO, Prob 11/37.
16. The date of Mary’s death has often been taken as occurring in December 1557. However, a second grant to Thomas Gresham dated 19 January 1556 confirms that she was already dead.
17. L. Stone and H. Colvin, ‘The Howard Tombs at Framlingham, Suffolk’, Archeological Journal, 122 (1966), p. 161–8.
18. Neville Williams believed that he had correctly identified PRO SP14/55/n11 as an account of the Duchess of Richmond’s funeral. N. Williams, Thomas Howard 4th Duke of Norfolk (1964), p. 30. However, this is probably the funeral of the second wife of the 4th duke, Margaret, the daughter of Thomas, Lord Audley, who was initially buried in Norwich at St John the Baptist Church.
Epilogue
1. T. Fuller, The Church History of Britain, III, p. 232.
2. J. Loach, Edward VI, pp. 8, 11, 153–8.
3. D. Loades, Mary Tudor, p. 146.
4. C. Ferguson, Naked to Mine Enemies, p. 343. Since Henry believed his marriage to Katherine to be unlawful he would probably have disputed the charge that Richmond was also born in adultery.
5. Sir William Paget was by this point a pivotal figure in Tudor government, one of two principal secretaries of state, an accomplished clerk and diplomat who helped lobby support among members of the privy council for Seymour’s coup to raise himself up as Lord Protector after Henry died.