An excellent and very readable account of Isabella’s early life and her marriage to Ferdinand can be found in Liss (1992), pp. 11–81. Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 1–45, is also indispensable. For general information on the fall of Granada, see Kamen (1983), pp. 32–37; Elliott (1963), pp. 32–41. Prescott (1854), pp. 241–51, is a rich source. In particular, however, see Liss (1992), pp. 194–237, which gives a full account of the wars against the Moors, including a description of the fall of Granada; Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 89–106. Readers wanting more detail and information will find these works very helpful.
The quotation that describes Ferdinand and Isabella as more than mortal is from Prescott (1854), p. 247. Ferdinand’s letter to Elizabeth of York is from CSPSp I, no. 40. Ferdinand’s letter to Pope Innocent is quoted in Kamen (1983), p. 35. The reference to the bedsheet is by Liss (1992), p. 79. Ibid., p. 47, Liss mentions the failure to show the bedsheet after Henry’s marriage. The biographer who says that Isabella had a “youthful freshness” is Fernández-Armesto (1975), p. 5. Ferdinand’s letter to Katherine about marriage is CSPSp II, no. 22. Ferdinand’s cast is mentioned ibid., no. 437. Isabella’s comments on La Beltraneja are from ibid., no. 379. The Catholic Monarchs’ assertion that their lands were united is quoted in Boruchoff et al. (2003), p. 27. Isabella’s early promise to protect the Jews is mentioned by Liss (1992), p. 267. Talavera’s comment on the Moors is from Elliott (1963), p. 40. Isabella’s joy at Boabdil’s departure is mentioned by Liss (1992), p. 314.
Katherine’s choice of badge is fully discussed by Starkey (2004), pp. 14–15. Charles V’s comment on the beauty of the Alhambra is taken from Irwin (2004), p. 63. For details and comments on Isabella’s art collection, see Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 113–14; Ruiz (2004), pp. 52–53; Boruchoff et al. (2003), pp. 103–19. The references to the queen’s tapestry collection are from Campbell (2002), pp. 20, 26. The children’s presents and fondness for sweet food items are mentioned by Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 60, 65; Liss (1992), p. 251. Isabella’s letter to her confessor is quoted in Hume (1906), p. 102. My comments on the girls’ (and the queen’s) clothing are based on Aram (2005), pp. 24–26; Kamen (1983), p. 49; Gairdner (1858), pp. 344, 345, 350. For Machado’s reference to Princess Isabella dancing with one of her ladies, see ibid., pp. 345–46. For details on Isabella’s own education and her library, see Liss (1992), pp. 17–22, 254–58; Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 109–14. Readers interested in further analysis of the part played in Isabella’s image by her patronage of learning will find Boruchoff et al. (2003), pp. 91–102, fascinating. Juan’s birth and the festivities it engendered are described by Liss (1992), pp. 152–54. Hume (1906), p. 96, records Isabella calling Juan her “angel.” Harris (2002), pp. 99–107, is very useful for details concerning childbirth. The remark that Juana was “handsome” is taken from CSPVen I, no. 854. Fernández-Armesto (1975), p. 123–24, states that Maria was one of twins. Information on Katherine’s birth comes from Mattingly (1942), p. 15. Prince Arthur’s praise for Katherine’s “sweet face” is taken from CSPSp I, no. 312. For the education of the royal children, see Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 58–61; Liss (1992), pp. 251–53; Aram (2005), pp. 24–27; Mattingly (1942), pp. 17–18; Prawdin (1939), p. 15; Starkey (2004), pp. 15–18. It is Starkey who points out the girls were inadequately trained in foreign languages and that this was hardly conducive to bedroom chitchat, ibid., p. 18. See also Vives (2000), p. 24, for the reference to Alessandro’s book on female education.
CHAPTER 3: OF WEDDINGS AND FUNERALS
Useful accounts of the background to Isabella’s marriage to Afonso and the celebrations connected with it can be found in Liss (1992), pp. 113, 225–26; Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 118–20. See also Mattingly (1942), p. 20. Details on the Portuguese celebrations for the marriage and the reactions to Afonso’s death are taken from Marques (1971), pp. 33–35, 264–65, 278. The princess’s determination never to marry again is mentioned in CSPSp I, no. 150. Machado’s descriptions of the unmarried girl dancing are taken from Gairdner (1858), pp. 345 and 349. The Catholic Monarchs’ reluctance to send Juan overseas is taken from CSPSp I, no. 41. Maximilian’s letter in which he describes his wife, Mary, Duchess of Burgundy, and her love of hunting is quoted in Hare (1913), p. 46. The Venetian ambassador’s description of Philip is from CSPVen I, no. 842. The suggestion that the widowed Maximilian should marry one of Ferdinand and Isabella’s daughters is taken from CSPSp I, no. 21 (p. 11). Good general details on the marriages of Juana and Juan can be found in Liss (1992), pp. 322–23; Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 120–21. Isabella’s requests to Henry VII that he should help if Juana or Margaret became stranded in an English port are from CSPSp I, nos. 151, 152. Juana’s voyage and arrival in the Low Countries is described by Aram (2005), p. 34; Margaret’s voyage and arrival are described by Liss (1992), pp. 323–24. Henry VII’s letters to Margaret offering her every assistance are from CSPSp I, nos. 173, 174. For Isabella’s stoic comment on Juan’s death and the country’s reaction, see Prescott (1854), p. 342. The need to accept God’s will in such matters is from LP XII, ii, no. 1030. For details on Isabella of Portugal’s succession, the birth of her son Miguel, and both her own and the child’s death, see Liss (1991), pp. 325 and 332; Fernández-Armesto (1975), p. 123; Prescott (1854), pp. 343–46. Isabella’s letter to de Puebla is CSPSp I, no. 296.
CHAPTER 4: “OUR ILLUSTRIOUS CHILDREN”
Isabella’s request that Katherine’s reception should not cause too much expense is mentioned in CSPSp I, no. 293. Details on Katherine’s journey, arrival, and reception are taken from Starkey (2003), pp. 40–44; The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 4–6; CSPSp I, nos. 298, 299, 300, 302, 304, 305; Leland III (1770), pp. 352–53. The reference to Katherine’s dowry is taken from CSPSp I, no. 29. Henry’s letter to Katherine is in LP Ric III and Hen VII I, no. 16. For Katherine’s household, see CSPSp I, nos. 249, 280, 288. Margaret Beaufort’s life is taken from the entry in ODNB written by Michael K. Jones and Malcolm G. Underwood. Margaret’s letters to Henry VII are printed by Wood (1846) I, pp. 118–20; Ellis (1824–46), 1st Series, I, pp. 46–48. Henry’s letter to his mother is ibid., pp. 43–46. Of the many references to Margaret’s influence over Henry and over Elizabeth of York, I have chosen CSPSp I, no. 210. I have used Rosemary Horrox’s ODNB entry on Elizabeth of York for basic details of the queen’s life. See also CSPVen I, no. 833 and CSPSp I, no. 210. Elizabeth’s letter to Isabella suggesting they exchange news about their children is printed by Wood (1846) I, pp. 114–16. See also CSPSp I, nos. 185, 202, 203, 221. The possibility that Margaret of Burgundy should teach Katherine French is mentioned in ibid., no. 203. Arthur’s letter to Katherine is from Wood (1846) I, pp. 121–22. Of the many references to Katherine’s bringing a special cloth to be used in the christening of her children, I have used CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1107.
For accounts of Juana’s first few weeks in the Netherlands, see Aram (2005), pp. 34–41; Prawdin (1939), pp. 16–23; Hare (1913), pp. 91–92; Miller (1963), pp. 181–86. Details on Katherine’s reception and the Dogmersfield meeting are based on Leland III (1770), pp. 353–56; The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), p. 1; Starkey (2004), pp. 44–47; Mattingly (1942), pp. 31–37. It is Mattingly who suggests that Henry might have determined to see Katherine for himself in case Ferdinand had somehow tricked him. Warbeck’s letter asking Isabella to help him is CSPSp I, no. 86. The suggestion that Juana’s presence in the Netherlands might be a useful disincentive to fostering further Yorkist plots there comes from ibid., no. 113. An excellent starting point for the main details of Arthur’s life can be found in Rosemary Horrox’s entry for ODNB. Arthur’s letter to Katherine is printed by Wood (1846) I, pp. 121–22. Of the many accounts of Arthur’s birth, early infancy, and Arthurian legends, see Starkey (2008), pp. 41–58; Anglo (1969), pp. 44–47, 55–56, 62–64; The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. xvii–xix. Arthur’s education is discussed by Starkey (2008), pp. 122–23, but see also the articles by Carlson (1991) and Hepburn (1997), both of which are particularly useful on this topic despite their areas of disagreement. The quotation from André comes from Constance Pike’s unpublished translation of his Life. Juan’s court is described by Fernández-Armesto (1975), pp. 58–61. Arthur’s letter to Ferdinand and Isabella is CSPSp I, no. 312.
My account of the pageants is pieced together from The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 12–38; Chronicles of London (1905), pp. 234–48; The Great Chronicle of London (1893), pp. 296–309. Quotations concerning the pageants are taken from these three sources but are mainly from Chronicles of London. The themes of the pageants and their meaning are superbly explored by Anglo (1969), pp. 56–97, and by Gordon Kipling in his notes to The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 119–42. See also Starkey (2004), pp. 48–57, for an excellent summary and description of Katherine’s reception and the pageants. That Henry VII had intended that Katherine should enter London in a carriage is mentioned in LP Ric III and Hen VII I, p. 410. Anglo (1969), p. 77, suggests that in the fourth pageant Arthur is seated in a chair, while Kipling in the notes to The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne believes that Arthur is seated in a chariot; since Arthur is in armor, I feel that the latter is more credible and consequently I have portrayed the prince in a chariot in my account. For those interested in the City of London, and Cheapside in particular, see Stow (1956), pp. 231–47. The remarks of Sir Thomas More and his quotation on Katherine are taken from Rogers (1961), pp. 2–3. The assessment of Henry VII’s avarice is from Bacon (1881), p. 213. Mention of 500 marks being levied for gifts for Katherine can be found in Guildhall Library, London, MS Repertory of the Court of Aldermen, 1, fo. 87.
CHAPTER 7: THE ESTATE OF MATRIMONY
My account of the wedding of Katherine and Arthur is pieced together from The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 39–51; Chronicles of London (1905), pp. 248–50; The Great Chronicle of London (1893), pp. 309–12. For a full description of St. Paul’s, see Stow (1956), pp. 290–302. For a detailed account of sixteenth-century wedding services, see Sarum Missal (1913) II, pp. 143–61. The feasting, jousts, and entertainments that followed the wedding are described in The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 47–76; Chronicles of London (1905), pp. 250–53; The Great Chronicle of London (1893), pp. 312–16. See also Anglo (1969), pp. 100–103. The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), p. 47, refers to the consummation of the marriage; the other two chronicles I have relied upon do not mention it at all. The printed versions of the depositions concerning Katherine and Arthur’s wedding night can be found in LP IV, iii, nos. 5774, 5778; Herbert (1649), pp. 242–45. The originals are BL, Cotton MS, Appendix XXVII, fos. 58–82v. See also BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B. XII, fos. 109–24, for William Thomas’s statement. The curious thoughtfulness displayed by Henry VII in showing Katherine his library and giving her a jewel when she exhibited signs of strain is described in The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 77–78. Don Pedro de Ayala’s dispatch to Ferdinand and Isabella in which he describes the discussions concerning Katherine traveling to Wales with Arthur is CSPSp, Supp, no. 1. For Arthur’s part in the proceedings, see Starkey (2004), pp. 69 and 72; Mattingly (1942), p. 40. Charles V’s remarks on the dangers of too much sexual intercourse for young men come from Brandi (1939), p. 488. For an excellent analysis of the consummation issue, see Starkey (2004), in particular pp. 83–84. Starkey puts forward the interesting theory that perhaps Katherine blocked out what really happened concerning the physical side of her marriage to Arthur.
For a full account of the early years of Juana’s marriage, her sojourn in Spain, and the events following her return to Burgundy, see Aram (2005), pp. 41–75. Aram also includes an analysis of Juana’s feelings for Philip, ibid., pp. 68–69. The extracts I have chosen from the reports sent to Ferdinand and Isabella from Friar Tomás de Matienzo, the Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz, are from CSPSp, Supp, nos. 1, 2, 4.
Much of this chapter is based on the information given in The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 80–93, together with Kipling’s admirable notes, ibid., pp. 164–68. See also Starkey (2004), pp. 73–78; Mattingly (1942), pp. 42–45. For William Thomas’s deposition, see BL, Cotton MS, Vitellius B. XII, fos. 109–24. For details on Sir Richard and Margaret Pole, see Pierce (2003), pp. 14–27. Starkey’s assertion (2004), p. 75, that Katherine knew that the execution of the Earl of Warwick was probably linked to her own arrival is supported by Margaret’s son, Reginald Pole, CSPVen V, pp. 257–58, but Pole does not say that it was his mother who told her, nor that the princess heard about it at Ludlow. The quotation concerning Arthur’s rule in Wales is from The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), pp. 78–79. For details of Arthur’s work as Prince of Wales, see Robinson (2002). It is Starkey (2004), pp. 76–77, who posits the suggestion that Arthur may have died from testicular cancer; Mattingly (1942), p. 44, mentions the suggestion that the young prince died from tuberculosis, although he inclines more toward the view that the sweating sickness may have been the cause. The facts that the author of The Recyt of the Ladie Kateryne (1990), p. 91, mentions illness in Worcester, and that Katherine herself became ill, seem to support the latter view. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Dafyd Wyn Wiliam for transcribing Rhys Nanmor’s ode and for providing me with an English translation of the entire poem from the original Welsh. The poem is a masterpiece of Welsh artistry and, like other works of the period, deserves to be much better known and used. It can be found in “Barddoniaeth Llawdden a Rhys Nanmor,” M.A. dissertation by Mary Headley, 1938 (poem no. 71), in NLW, Isabella’s order to Dr. de Puebla that Katherine should be removed from Ludlow is in CSPSp I, no. 319.
The description of Katherine’s litter is from Nicolas (1830), p. 103. The letter from Ferdinand and Isabella concerning Arthur’s death is in CSPSp I, no. 319. The danger of French attack is mentioned ibid., no. 333. Early marriage negotiations are ibid., nos. 318, 360. For a description of Durham House, see Fox (2007), p. 82. Starkey (2004), p. 79, discusses the timing of Henry’s creation as Prince of Wales. I am grateful to Dr. Starkey for reminding me of the time lag between Arthur’s death and Henry’s assumption of his dead brother’s title. References to the issue of consummation are from CSPSp I, nos. 325, 327. See also references to the papal dispensation, ibid., nos. 354, 370, 389, 396. Chrimes (1972), pp. 285–86, discusses the issue of consummation thoroughly. Intriguingly, Scarisbrick (1968), p. 188, states that Katherine had written to her father immediately after Arthur’s death declaring that she remained a virgin. Unfortunately Scarisbrick does not give a reference for this assertion and I can find no trace of the vital letter; it would also contradict Ferdinand’s own puzzlement over the issue, which is fully documented in CSPSp I, no 325, so I can only treat it with caution. In any case, if the letter does, or did, exist, it merely supports the line that Katherine was to take throughout her life. For the suggestion that bloodstained bedsheets were smuggled to Spain, see Cavendish (1825), pp. 289–90. The caustic comment that Henry guarded every coin he possessed is CSPSp I, no. 239. The references to Katherine’s grief over Arthur and that of the Queen of Portugal when her first husband died are ibid., nos. 321, 343. Isabella’s conviction that serving God did not preclude serving the state at the same time is ibid., no. 142. Her lie to the King of Scotland is mentioned ibid., no. 132. Her order that Katherine should return to Spain comes from ibid., no. 343. My account of the death of Queen Elizabeth of York and her funeral is based on The Great Chronicle of London (1893), pp. 321–22; Nicolas (1830), pp. xciii, xcv, xcvii–ci. There is a discrepancy regarding the number of horses used to draw Elizabeth’s bier: Nicolas states that there were six, while The Great Chronicle of London says that there were eight. Starkey (2008), pp. 169–70, gives Henry VIII’s reaction to his mother’s death. Isabella’s condolences on the death of Elizabeth, her refusal to countenance her daughter’s marriage with Henry VII, and her comment that Arthur had actually been more suitable for Katherine than his brother are all taken from CSPSp I, no. 360. Chrimes (1972), p. 287, effectively dismisses the suggestion that Henry VII really did want to marry Katherine. The ratification of the marriage treaty and the betrothal are mentioned in CSPSp I, nos. 375, 376. For the full terms of the treaty, see ibid., no. 364. My references to Katherine’s jaunts to court, her illnesses, and her letters to Henry are taken from ibid., nos. 398, 400.
CHAPTER 11: “THE GREATEST AFFLICTION”
Isabella’s will can be found in CSPSp, Supp, nos. 5, 6 (pp. 63–69). Liss (1992), pp. 342–43, has a very full and moving account of Isabella’s last days. Ferdinand’s letter to Henry VII announcing Isabella’s death is CSPSp I, no. 409. See also Gairdner (1858), p. 416. Katherine’s letters to her parents are from CSPSp I, nos. 412, 413. For very full and readable accounts of Juana’s conduct and treatment upon her return to Burgundy, see Liss (1992), p. 342; Aram (2005), pp. 76–81. It is Aram who points out, to my mind convincingly, that Isabella may well have inserted the caveat clause in her will because she was only too conscious of Philip’s svengali-like hold over Juana. Isabella’s letter to Philip requesting that he treat Juana more kindly is mentioned by Liss (1992), p. 342. According to Liss, this letter states that Juana is “of unsound mind.” Bergenroth’s suggestion of religious anxiety as a possible explanation for the clause can be read in the Introduction to the CSPSp, Supp, pp. xxi–xxiii. See also Aram’s analysis in Gómez et al. (2008), p. 38. Ferdinand’s proclaiming of Juana is from CSPSp I, no. 472. For a very full, and completely convincing, discussion of the episode concerning Juana’s alleged relinquishing of her powers to her husband, see Aram (1998). Examples of Henry VII writing to Juana are CSPSp I, nos. 175, 177. The Venetian ambassador’s reports concerning Juana’s demeanor, the joust, and her jealousy are from CSPVen I, nos. 854, 875, 880. The proceedings of the Council of Toro can be found in CSPSp, Supp, no. 7 (pp. 70–71).
CHAPTER 12: “A HAPPINESS RARE”
The remark concerning “a happiness rare” is taken from Herbert (1649), p. 67. Problems for English merchants in Spain are mentioned in CSPSp I, no. 438. Mattingly (1942), pp. 56–64, and Starkey (2004), pp. 88–91, give very full and highly readable accounts of Katherine’s involvement in the machinations of Doña Elvira and her brother. For Doña Elvira’s general influence over Katherine, see CSPSp I, nos. 401, 420, 439. Ferdinand’s distrust of Doña Elvira is mentioned ibid., no 432. The entire story of the letters is given in de Puebla’s dispatches, ibid., nos. 440, 441, 443. Wood (1845) I, p. 132, says that Doña Elvira went to Burgundy to see an eye specialist. My account of Philip and Juana’s unexpected visit to England is pieced together from Gairdner (1858), pp. 282–303; CSPVen I, nos. 863, 864, 865, 867, 868, 869, 870; Mattingly (1942), pp. 65–70; Starkey (2004), pp. 91–93; Starkey (2008), pp. 206–20. The very plausible explanation of Philip’s strange words about being a mariner is from Starkey (2004), p. 92. Mattingly’s suggestion, (1942), p. 68, that the words were uttered by Katherine is contradicted by Gairdner (1858), p. 288. It is Starkey (2008), p. 213, who suggests that Philip wanted to keep Katherine and Juana apart. My extract from Katherine’s letter to her sister is printed in CSPSp, Supp, no. 23 (p. 132).
For further reading on Katherine’s early life as a widow and the 1503 marriage treaty, see Mattingly (1942), pp. 53–58; Starkey (2004), pp. 80–82, 87–88, 93–97. The terms of the 1503 marriage treaty are printed in CSPSp I, no. 364. Interestingly, Mattingly (1942), p. 54, states that the marriage treaty said that Henry, Prince of Wales, would be free to marry Katherine when he had completed his fifteenth year; Scarisbrick (1968), p. 8, confirms that the treaty said that the prince had to have completed his fourteenth year. Prince Henry’s repudiation of the marriage treaty is from CSPSp I, no 435. Katherine’s early money problems are described ibid., nos. 321, 323. Ferdinand’s instruction to her to preserve her “treasures” is ibid., no. 431. The Venetian ambassador’s remarks about Philip’s councillors’ fears about Juana are taken from CSPVen I, no. 873. Those readers wanting a brief but highly readable and informative summary of the general background to the situation in Spain, and the relationship between Philip and Ferdinand, will find Elliott (1963), pp. 127–30, very helpful. The best overall account of Juana’s return to Spain and the aftermath of Philip’s death is Aram (2002), pp. 83–93. See also Aram (1998), a masterly essay which is essential reading for those who wish to approach the question of Juana’s alleged insanity from a fresh, unbiased point of view. I have taken Juan Lopez’s defense of Juana’s sanity from ibid., p. 342. Ibid., p. 333, refers to the suggestion made by Juana’s nineteenth-century biographer, Antonio Rodriguez Villa, that the queen was “crazy from love.” See also Prawdin (1939), pp. 111–55, for an enthralling account of this period of Juana’s life. Loades (1989), pp. 5ff., and Chrimes (1972), p. 292, n. 5 and also p. 296, n. 1, are skeptical of Juana’s alleged insanity. The Spanish ambassador’s account of his meeting with Juana is taken from CSPVen I, no. 872. Juana’s growing confidence is mentioned ibid., no. 875. The suggestion that Philip’s councillors were feeding her lies is from ibid., no. 873. Her seclusion and continued sexual relationship with Philip are referred to ibid., no. 881. The various negotiations and agreements between Philip and Ferdinand are pieced together from CSPSp, Supp, nos. 10, 11, 12 (pp. 78–84). Ferdinand’s letter justifying his actions is CSPSp I, no. 471, and his suggestion that Philip should treat Juana kindly is ibid., no. 470. Ferdinand’s letter to Katherine is CSPSp, Supp, no. 13 (pp. 85–90).
CHAPTER 14: THE ART OF POLITICS
The most balanced assessment of Dr. de Puebla can be found in Mattingly (1940). Examples of de Puebla’s pleas for money can be seen in CSPSp I, nos. 221, 511, 552 and ibid., no 204, mentions the amusement he caused to Margaret Beaufort and Henry VII. From Katherine’s frequent letters of complaint about de Puebla, I have chosen examples from ibid., nos 443, 448, 449, 551. Examples of when she asked for a better ambassador can be found ibid., nos. 449, 551. Ferdinand’s love for Katherine, which was often expressed, comes from ibid., no. 502; CSPSp II, no. 13. The reference to his treating her communications as gospel truth is from CSPSp I, no. 575. His conciliatory letter to Fuensalida is CSPSp II, no. 13. The suggestion that Katherine should regard her marriage as beyond doubt is from CSPSp I, no. 502. Readers interested in Margaret Tudor should see her biography written by Richard Glen Eaves in ODNB. Katherine’s letter to Juana is calendared in CSPSp I, no. 492; the full text is printed by Wood (1845) I, p. 141. Wood believes this letter to be written to Germaine de Foix because it is so politely and submissively couched, but, as Bergenroth rightly points out, Germaine was never queen of Castile, and in fact the language in which Katherine addresses her sister is similar to that she uses elsewhere (compare CSPSp I, no. 553). Details of Ferdinand’s letter to Katherine explaining his return to Spain can be found in CSPSp, Supp, no. 13 (pp. 85–90). Her response is ibid., no. 16 (pp. 99–105). The reference to Juana’s having suffered an “unspeakable affliction” is taken from CSPSp I, no. 501. Ferdinand’s dispatch to de Puebla describing Juana’s refusal to have Philip buried is CSPSp, Supp, no. 24 (pp. 137–39). Manuel’s support for Ferdinand is mentioned in CSPSp I, no. 437. Katherine writing in cipher is from ibid., no. 541. Her statement that she could no longer endure her treatment is from CSPSp, Supp, no. 3 (pp. 16–22), and her assertion that she has suffered more than any other woman is from CSPSp I, no. 432.
An excellent summary of Henry VII’s foreign policy can be found in Chrimes (1972), pp. 272–97. Ferdinand’s letter to Katherine about his rapturous welcome home is printed in CSPSp I, no. 554. The unknown chronicler is cited by Aram (2005), p. 94. For an example of a letter ostensibly in Juana’s name but actually signed by Ferdinand, see CSPSp II, no. 6. My reference to Henry VII telling Katherine that she could live wherever she wanted is taken from CSPSp I, no. 496. It is Mattingly (1942), p. 73, who states that her apartments were inferior. Katherine’s letter to Ferdinand asking for help to fund her ladies’ dowries is from CSPSp I, no. 446, printed in full by Wood (1845) I, pp. 129–30. The reference to Francesca de Caceres comes from CSPSp, Supp, no. 3 (pp. 19–20). Mattingly (1942), pp. 89–90, suggests that de Caceres was involved in a clique in Katherine’s household that aimed to secure their return to Spain and that this was why Katherine came to dislike her. Henry VII’s reluctance to settle disputes within Katherine’s household is mentioned in CSPSp I, no. 400. My account of Friar Diego is pieced together from CSPSp, Supp, nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 (pp. 13–32). Katherine’s assertion that she has been a “martyr” for Spain is mentioned ibid., no. 16 (p. 105). For further details and analysis of Henry’s marriage portrait, see Glück (1933). Henry’s request for a portrait of Queen Joanna is mentioned in CSPSp I, no. 401, and his envoys’ reports on the physical attributes of the queen is ibid., no. 436. Katherine’s lament that she always had the “worst part” is taken from CSPSp, Supp, no. 21 (p. 122). Ferdinand’s letter accrediting Katherine as his ambassador is CSPSp I, no. 526. The references to Henry’s marriage to Juana come from CSPSp, Supp, nos. 13 and 14 (pp. 85–97); CSPSp I, no. 586, which also contains references to Henry’s envoy meeting Juana (pp. 458–459) and to the marriage between Charles and Mary (p. 459). Katherine’s letter to Juana is CSPSp, Supp, no. 23 (pp. 132–35), and her letter to Cisneros is ibid., no. 22 (pp. 125–26). Ferdinand’s letter concerning Katherine’s dowry and marriage settlement is CSPSp I, no. 598. For the possibility of Henry’s switching sides, see ibid., I, no. 600. Katherine’s letter of despair is CSPSp, Supp, no. 3 (pp. 16–22, especially p. 22).
CHAPTER 16: THE TRIUMPH OF HOPE
The wedding oath taken by Henry and Katherine is printed in CSPSp II, no. 17. Of the many descriptions of Henry, the ones I have chosen come from CSPVen II, nos. 918, 1287; Hall (1904), I, p. 5; LP I, i, no. 51. References to Maria’s marriage to Manuel of Portugal are from CSPSp II, no. 8. For fuller consideration of why Henry chose to marry Katherine, see Mattingly (1942), pp. 95–96; Starkey (2004), pp. 111–13; Starkey (2008), pp. 277–91. Ferdinand’s Spanish festivities are mentioned by Halliwell (1848) I, p. 197. For contemporary references to the legality of the match, see CSPSp II, no. 8; Hall (1904), I, p. 4. My account of the procession and the coronation come from ibid., pp. 5–10; Guy (2008), pp. 27–29; Starkey (2004), pp. 109–11; Starkey (2008), pp. 286–96; LP I, i, nos. 82, 112. For the traditional protocol, see also Royal Book (1790), pp. 123–124. Henry’s letter praising Katherine is summarized in LP I, i, no. 119; printed in full in Halliwell (1848), I, pp. 196–99. It was David Starkey who referred to Margaret Beaufort as the “mother-in-law from hell” in Starkey (2004), p. 28. For the tournament following the coronation, see Anglo (1969), p. 11; Starkey (2008), p. 295; Hall (1904), I, pp. 11–14. Henry’s letter speaking of passing time in innocent pleasures is CSPSp II, no. 19. Katherine’s letter to her father is summarized in LP I, i, no 127; printed in full in Wood (1845) I, pp. 157–61. Juana’s message of congratulation is from CSPSp II, no. 21. John Stile’s report to Henry VII is from LP I, i, no. 6.
Stile’s dispatch to Henry VIII is printed in LP I, i, no. 162. Juana’s tapestries are discussed by Campbell (2002), pp. 94, 131–33, 146–48. Katherine’s dower settlement is printed in LP I, i, no. 94 (35); its value is mentioned in LP II, i, no. 1363. For Baynard’s Castle, see Thurley (1993), p. 36; Colvin (1982), pp. 50–52. For Havering see ibid., pp. 150–53; Thurley (1993), p. 78. Those members of Katherine’s household who attended Henry VII’s funeral are listed in LP I, i, no. 20, and her household at the time of the coronation is detailed in ibid., no. 82. Margaret Beaufort’s will is discussed in Nichols (1780), p. 356–403; see also LP II, ii, no. 4183. The scope of the financial demands made upon queens and Elizabeth of York’s loans from Henry VII are mentioned in Nicolas (1830), pp. cii–ciii. Hayward (2007), pp. 84–86, discusses Margaret Beaufort’s clothes. For details on the people Katherine employed in connection with her dress, jewels, etc., see ibid., pp. 323–25, 327, 328–29, 333, 335–36, 340; for Katherine’s clothes, see ibid., pp. 177–80; for Katherine’s household expenses, see ibid., p. 180. Readers interested in costume, fabrics, jewelry, and material culture will find in Hayward a thrilling treasure trove. I have taken my references to individual officials of Katherine’s household from LP I, i, no. 82. Readers interested in Lord Mountjoy should read James P. Carley’s account in ODNB; those interested in Jane Seymour will find Barrett L. Beer’s article in ODNB useful. Staverton’s case is described by Guy (2008), p. 144, and it is Guy who calls Staverton the “black sheep of the family.” Katherine’s council is discussed by Mattingly (1942), p. 133. For information concerning how royal palaces were organized and what the various rooms were used for, see Thurley (1993), pp. 113–61. Those readers interested in pursuing this topic further will find Starkey et al. (1987) particularly valuable. Katherine’s recycling of New Year’s gifts is mentioned in LP Add. I, i, no. 367. Erasmus’s boast that the queen wanted him as her teacher is from LP I, ii, no. 3063, and her chess sets and cloth of estate are included in the inventory of her possessions taken at Baynard’s Castle printed in LP VIII, no. 209. Katherine’s reaction to the widowed Francesca Grimaldi’s attempts to find another post is mentioned by Starkey (2004), p. 149; Mattingly (1942), p. 111. See also LP I, ii, no. 2120. I have based my account of Alessandro Geraldini on LP II, ii, nos. 3164, 3774, 3775, 4195, 4196; see also Mattingly (1942), p. 49; Dowling (1986), pp. 144–45; Starkey (2004), pp. 70, 73, 82; CSPSp I, no. 322. Other historians who have noted that Katherine’s nature was not a forgiving one are Dowling (1986), pp. 144–45; Mattingly, (1942), p. 111; Starkey, (2004), p. 149. Henry’s letter to Ferdinand announcing Katherine’s pregnancy is CSPSp II, no. 23, and Ferdinand’s response to Katherine is ibid., no. 28. The items ordered for the royal nursery are listed in LP I, i, no. 381 (95).
Bergenroth’s account of how he managed to access those documents originally withheld from him can be found in his Introduction to CSPSp, Supp. It makes fascinating reading. Starkey (2004), pp. 115–23, gives a superb description and analysis of Katherine’s miscarriage and false pregnancy and of the episode concerning Buckingham’s sisters. Mattingly (1942), pp. 11–12, discusses the trouble over Buckingham’s sisters but ignores the issue of the false pregnancy. I have based my account on CSPSp, Supp, nos. 8 (pp. 34–36) and 9 (pp. 36–44). It is Starkey (2004), p. 119, who points out, quite rightly, that Katherine lied to her father. Ferdinand’s letter demanding information is LP I, i, no. 482, CSPSp II, no. 49. Henry’s letter to Ferdinand is LP I, ii, no. 472, CSPSp II, no. 42. Katherine’s letter to Ferdinand is LP I, i, no. 473, CSPSp II, no. 43. Ferdinand’s letter wondering about the progress of her pregnancy is LP I, i, no. 482, CSPSp II, no. 49. Caroz’s comment that Henry was not interested in state business is from CSPSp II, no. 44. Ferdinand’s instruction that Katherine could be influenced by Friar Diego if necessary is contained in LP I, i, no. 483; CSPSp II, no. 50. My description of Richmond Palace is from Thurley (1993), pp. 27–32, 104. The mummery is described by Hall (1904) I, p. 21. Details on childbirth rituals are from Cressy (1997), pp. 80–86; Harris (2002), pp. 99–107. Prince Henry’s christening is pieced together from LP I, i, nos. 670, 674, 675. The jousts are described by Anglo (1964), pp. 111–12; Hall (1904) I, pp. 23–27.
For the death and burial of Prince Henry, see LP I, i, no. 707; Hall (1904) I, p. 27; Fox (2007), pp. 1–3. I also used the original handwritten primary account of the burial, NA, LC 2/1, fos. 159–174v, which contains information that is not available in the printed sources. Archbishop Warham’s letter of condolence to his niece is printed by Ellis (1824–46), 3rd Series, II, pp. 46–47. Katherine’s letter to Cardinal Bainbridge is from CSPVen II, no. 203. Her questions on the cost of galleys and her desire for war are mentioned in ibid., no. 211; LP II, ii, no. 1407. Lists of names of those involved in the French war can be found in LP I, ii, no. 2052. Katherine’s letter to Margaret is ibid., no. 2138. Her letters to Wolsey about her anxieties concerning Henry’s safety are ibid., nos. 2120, 2162; printed in Ellis (1824–46), 1st Series, I, pp. 78–82, 84–85. Katherine’s powers as regent are taken from LP I, ii, nos. 1985, 2005 (g.46, 47). Her letter to Wolsey about sewing banners is ibid., no. 2162, printed in Ellis (1824–46), 1st Series, I, pp. 82–84. I have pieced together my account of Katherine’s actions and preparations for the Scottish war from LP I, ii, nos. 2143, 2162, 2204, 2278, 2299, 2330 (3); CSPVen II, no. 297. The fall of Norham is mentioned in CSPMilan I, no. 655; LP I, ii, no. 2279. From the many excellent references to Flodden, I mainly used ibid., nos. 2246, 2260, 2283. Henry’s reception in Lille is mentioned ibid., no. 2391. Katherine’s letter to Wolsey about Henry’s victory is from ibid., no. 2200, printed in Ellis (1824–46), 1st Series, I, pp. 84–85. For details concerning the housing of the Duke of Longueville, see LP I, ii, no. 2226, printed in Ellis (1824–46), 3rd Series, I, pp. 152–54. The ambassadors’ letters are from CSPMilan I, no. 654; LP I, ii, no. 2261; CSPVen II, no. 329. Katherine’s letter telling Henry about Flodden is LP I, ii, no. 2268, printed in Ellis (1824–46), 1st Series, I, pp. 88–89. The reference to “ungracious dogholes” can be found in LP III, ii, no. 2958 (p. 1248). CSPVen II, no. 331, mentions (I think erroneously) that Katherine had given birth to a child. Additionally, Mattingly (1942), pp. 118–22, covers the period of the French war and Katherine’s regency succinctly and intelligibly, but I would also recommend that those interested in these events should read Starkey’s highly perceptive analysis in Starkey (2004), pp. 135–49.
Henry’s instructions to his ambassadors are from LP I, ii, no. 2656. Details of Mary’s marriage to Louis are from ibid., no. 3146; CSPVen II, no. 505. Ferdinand’s excuse for his truce with the French is LP I, ii, no. 2744, and Henry’s response is ibid., no. 2707. The Spanish ambassador’s acknowledgement that Katherine chose her husband over her father is ibid., no. 3524; CSPSp II, nos. 201–2. Details of Katherine’s miscarriage are taken from LP I, ii, nos. 3332, 3333, 3364, 3440, 3500, 3581; CSPVen II, no. 555. For readers interested in Elizabeth Blount, Beverly Murphy’s ODNB entry provides a good starting point. The revels are mentioned in LP II, ii, p. 1501. Katherine’s letter to her father mentioning the Candlemas miscarriage is CSPSp II, no. 238. For details on protocol surrounding royal childbirth, see the Royal Book (1790), pp. 125–26; CSPVen II, no. 691; LP II, i, no. 1573 (interestingly, this document is still using the system of beginning the new year in March rather than January so states that Mary was born on Monday, February 18, 1515, and christened on Wednesday, February 20, 1515, whereas we would date these events to Tuesday, February 18, 1516, and Thursday, February 20, 1516). The letters sent by Katherine and Henry to Ferdinand concerning the reconciliation and the treaty are CSPSp II, nos. 229, 230, 231, 238. See also CSPVen II, no. 635. ODNB has a life of Mary, the French Queen by David Loades; see also LP II, i, nos. 222, 223, 227, for details on Mary’s life and her marriage to Suffolk. For Ferdinand’s death and the accession of Charles, see ibid., nos. 1563, 1610; CSPSp II, no. 246. The story of Charles plucking the hawk is from CSPVen II, no. 505. The reference to Juana’s madness is from ibid., no. 564. For a full description of Charles’s behavior at Ferdinand’s requiem Mass, see Brandi (1939), p. 60.
My account of Juana in these years is based on Aram (2005), pp. 104–10, 145; Bergenroth’s Introduction to CSPSp, Supp, pp. xli–xliii; ibid., nos 25, 26 and 27 (pp. 141–53). The Venetian ambassador’s comment on Wolsey’s power is from CSPVen II, nos. 635, 894. Katherine’s involvement in Maria de Salinas’s jointure is documented in LA, 2ANC3/A/35, 2ANC3/A/36. Readers interested in the expulsion of Friar Diego should read his letter to Henry VIII upon his departure for Spain. It is printed (in Latin) in CSPSp, Supp, no. 8 (pp. 44–46). My account of Evil May Day is pieced together from CSPVen II, no. 887; LP II, ii, nos. 3218, 3230, 3259; Hall (1904), I, pp. 153–64. Katherine’s pregnancy is taken from CSPVen II, nos. 903, 1103; LP II, ii, nos. 4074, 4213, 4288, 4308, 4326, 4529, 4568; Halliwell (1848) I, pp. 234–35. Henry’s letter is undated, but most authorities believe that it concerns this particular pregnancy, e.g. Starkey (2004), p. 159. Henry’s writing desk was exhibited at the 2009 exhibition at the British Library, London, which marked the 500th anniversary of Henry’s accession. For a picture and description of the desk, see Doran, ed., and Starkey (2009), p. 116. My reference to moving Mary and her household because of the sweat is from LP II, ii, no. 4326. The payment for moving the font to and from Canterbury is mentioned ibid., pp. 1479, 1480. My references to the contents of Katherine’s chamber are taken from Camden Miscellany (1855), pp. 24, 30, 34, 37, 38; LP VIII, no. 209. Those interested in Mary’s upbringing will find much fuller and more detailed accounts than the one I have given in Starkey (2004), pp. 164–79; Loades (1989), pp. 28–35; Mattingly (1942), pp. 140–43. See also LP II, ii, pp. 1473, 1476, 1538, 1539, 1542; Ellis (1824–46), Ist Series, II, pp. 19–20. Erasmus’s comments on Henry’s courts are mentioned in LP II, ii, nos. 4115, 4340. Carlson (1991), discusses the controversial issue of whether or not Thomas Linacre was one of Arthur’s tutors, as is often suggested, and proves, conclusively to my mind, that he was not selected despite his hopes.
CHAPTER 22: THE MAN OF THE MOMENT
Aram (2005), pp. 112–25, gives an excellent account of Juana’s life in the early years of Charles’s rule and is a key source. Additionally, my information on Juana’s captivity in this period is largely pieced together from CSPSp, Supp, nos. 28–50. See particularly p. 154 (ibid., no. 29); pp. 157–58 (ibid., no. 30); p. 160 (ibid., no. 31); p. 162 (ibid., no. 32); pp. 164–65 (ibid., no. 33); pp. 166–67 (ibid., no. 34); p. 171 (ibid., no. 36); p. 184 (ibid., no. 42);p. 187 (ibid., no. 43); p. 190 (ibid., no. 45); p. 196 (ibid., no. 47); pp. 197–99 (ibid., no. 48); p. 200 (ibid., no. 49). See Brandi (1939), p. 81, for Charles’s early life; See CSPVen II, no. 1187 for the reference to Juana’s distress when Catalina was first removed from her. The quotation concerning Charles’s view of women rulers is taken from Brandi (1939), p. 488. For the final removal of Catalina, see CSPSp, Supp, no. 97 (p.418). Charles’s use of bribery in the imperial election is mentioned LP III, i, no. 50. Wolsey’s comment on Francis’s attempts to secure the election for himself is ibid., nos. 137, 318. The absence of the French ambassadors is noted in ibid., no. 383. Katherine’s joyful reaction to the news of Charles’s election is ibid., no. 402. My description of Mary’s betrothal is from CSPVen II, no. 1085. Katherine’s pleasure at the projected meeting with Charles is LP III, i, no. 637. Francis’s need for haste in his own meeting with Henry is ibid., no. 728. Charles’s letter of thanks to Katherine for helping to bring about his meeting with Henry is ibid, ii, no. 778.
I have taken my comments on Wolsey from CSPVen III, nos. 3, 18, 56, 232. Hall (1904) I, pp. 188–89, gives a brief account of Charles’s first visit to England, but for more details see CSPVen III, nos. 3, 50, 53, 54, 55. The Venetian gift of carpets to Wolsey is mentioned ibid., no. 30. From the many sources of the Field of Cloth of Gold, I have based my account on the Calais Chronicle (1846), pp. 19–27; the Rutland Papers (1842), pp. 28–42; CSPVen III, nos. 50, 60, 67, 68, 69, 74, 94; LP III, i, nos. 632, 702, 704, 852, 869, 870; Hall (1904), I, pp. 188–218. Anglo (1969), pp. 124–58, gives an excellent analysis and overview of the entire event. Campbell (2007), p. 145, identifies the King David hanging as one of Henry’s tapestries hanging in the palace at Guisnes. Ives (2004), p. 32, suggests that Anne Boleyn may have accompanied Queen Claude to the Field of Cloth of Gold. It is Anglo (1969), who points out that Wolsey’s retinue was bigger than those of Buckingham, Suffolk, and the Archbishop of Canterbury combined. For Mountjoy’s marriages, see James P. Carley’s masterly ODNB entry. The Council’s letter mentioning Mary at Richmond is printed in Ellis (1824–66), Ist Series, I, pp. 174–76; Calais Chronicle (1846), p. 92. My account of the discussions at Gravelines is pieced together from Calais Chronicle (1846), pp. 28–30; the Rutland Papers (1842), pp. 49–59; Hall (1904) I, pp. 219–221; LP III, i, nos. 907, 908, 914; CSPVen III, no. 106. Anglo (1969), pp. 158–68, gives a superb analysis of the spectacle and background of this meeting that is particularly useful for those readers wanting to discover more on the temporary pavilion and the masques.
CHAPTER 24: FAMILY FIRST AND LAST
The best account of Juana’s situation during the revolt of the Communeros is Aram (2005), pp. 125–28. Neither Aram’s succinct account of what happened nor her critical analysis of the effects on Juana and her behavior can be bettered. For basic details of the major events, see Elliott (1963), pp. 141–50; Kamen (1983), pp. 73–81; Brandi (1939), pp. 142–49. The adverse comments on Juana’s state of mind come from Elliott (1963), p. 145; Kamen (1983), p. 77; Brandi (1939), p. 144. Bergenroth’s Introduction to CSPSp, Supp, pp. 1xi–lxxiv, provides instructive commentary from one of Juana’s apologists. My account of the rising and its aftermath is largely based on ibid., nos. 49 (p. 201); 51 (pp. 204–5); 52 (p. 207); 53 (pp. 209–10); 54 (p. 214); 55 (p 218); 57 (pp. 225, 227); 58 (p. 232); 61 (pp. 247–52); 62 (pp. 254–55); 63 (p. 258); 64 (p. 26)1; 65 (p. 270); 67 (pp. 289–91, 293); 69 (p. 304); 71 (p. 325); 75 (pp. 340–41); 76 (p. 344); 79 (p. 354); 92 (p. 394); 93 (p. 385); 94 (pp. 397–401); 95 (pp. 401–2); 96 (pp. 404–5).
CHAPTER 25: THE LANDSCAPE CHANGES
For Katherine’s confessor’s book against Luther, see Carley (2004), pp. 115–16. The most recent account of the foreign policy leading up to the agreement with Charles can be found in Sharkey (2008). I am much indebted to Dr. Sharkey, my former student, for permission to refer to her work. A description of Wolsey’s visit to Bruges can be found in Hall (1904) I, pp. 228–29. Charles’s promise to assist Wolsey’s papal candidature is from LP, III, ii, no. 1887. References to Mary’s claiming Charles as her valentine and her performances for his ambassadors are taken from CSPSp, Further Supp, pp. 71, 73–74. My account of Charles’s visit in 1522 is pieced together from LP III, ii, nos. 2288, 2289, 2305, 2306, 2333, 2360; Hall, (1904) I, pp. 244–258; CSPVen II, nos. 466, 467; the Rutland Papers (1842), pp. 59–100, which give a very full account of the entire visit; Starkey (2004), pp. 186–89. Anglo (1969), pp. 170–206, provides a masterly analysis of the London pageants that cannot be bettered. For a description of Greenwich Palace and the royal barge, see Thurley (1993), pp. 75–78. Venetian reports that Henry was considering divorcing Katherine in 1514 are mentioned in CSPVen II, no. 479. Readers interested in the life of the Duke of Buckingham should see C.S.L. Davies’s entry in ODNB. Henry’s gift to Buckingham is from LP II, ii, no. 4075. My account of his arrest, trial, and execution is based on LP III, i, nos. 1070, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1288; CSPVen III, no. 213; Guy (2008), pp. 70–73. Thomas More’s acquisition of the manor of South in Kent is from LP III, i, no. 2239. A good starting point for Mary Boleyn is Jonathan Hughes’s ODNB entry, but the details I have included on her and on William Carey come from LP III, i, no. 317; LP III, ii, nos. 2074(5), 2297(12); LP IV, ii, no. 2972, (p. 1331). Rumors about the parentage of Mary’s son, Henry Carey, can be found in LP VIII, no. 567. For Fitzroy’s investitures, see CSPVen III, nos. 1037, 1053; LP IV, ii, no. 1431. A letter from Fitzroy’s tutor referring to the boy as “the prince” is printed in ibid., no. 3135. My reference to Katherine’s using her chaplain to send a warning to Charles concerning Henry’s growing discontent comes from CSPSp, Further Supp, p. 325. Charles’s fear of a possible Scottish match for Mary is from CSPSp III, no. 16.
CHAPTER 26: “A BLIND, DETESTABLE AND WRETCHED PASSION”
For a much fuller account of the divorce proceedings, see Starkey (2004), and Scarisbrick (1968). Kelly (1976), provides an excellent and fascinating analysis of the various court proceedings and the theories behind them; his book is essential reading for anyone wishing to study the divorce in more depth than I am able to provide. See also Parmiter (1967) for a very informative general account.
Katherine’s comment to the French ambassadors about antagonizing Charles is from LP IV, ii, no. 3105 (p. 1402). The Boleyns’ acquisition of Tonbridge is mentioned in LP III, ii, no. 2214 (29), while Grimstone is listed in LP IV, i, no. 546(2). The king’s contribution to Jane Parker’s jointure is mentioned in LP X, no. 1010; Ellis (1824–46), 1st Series, p. 67. Readers interested in pursuing the fascinating details of Jane’s jointure further should refer to unprinted sources: WRO, microfilm 705:349/12946/498729 is illuminating but should be read together with HLRO, MS PO1/1539 (Original Acts, 31 Henry VIII, c.20). The printed version of the Eltham Ordinances is LP IV, i, no. 1939 (4). To read those parts that were undecipherable to the Victorian transcribers, see NA, SP 1/37, fo. 102. Chapuys’s description of Henry’s feelings for Anne Boleyn as a “blind, detestable and wretched passion” is from CSPSp IV, ii, no. 584. For Cavendish’s comment on Henry’s passion for Anne beginning as she was courted by Percy, see Cavendish (1825) I, p. 58. The chronology of Henry’s affair with Anne is discussed by Ives (2004), pp. 81–92; Starkey (2004), pp. 271–85. Starkey’s discoveries on the date of Percy’s marriage are particularly interesting. Henry’s comment about hating writing is from LP III, i, no. 1. The extracts from Henry’s love letters which I have chosen to include are from Halliwell (1848) I, pp. 302–3 (LP IV, ii, no. 3221); Halliwell (1848) I, pp. 303–4 (LP IV, ii, no. 3326); Halliwell (1848) I, pp. 305–6 (LP IV, ii, no. 3218); Halliwell (1848) I, p. 317 (LP IV, ii, no. 3990). Anne’s beautiful eyes are mentioned in CSPVen IV, no. 872. The David tapestries and their significance are discussed by MacCulloch (1995), p. 180; Herman (1994), pp. 193–218; Campbell (2007), pp. 177–87. Readers interested in the Duke of Suffolk’s convoluted marital history should read LP IV, iii, no. 5859, which covers the ground with admirable, if salacious, clarity. Fisher’s comments on the marriage question are from LP IV, ii, no. 3148. Katherine’s assertions on the validity of her marriage are from CSPSp IV, ii, nos. 681, 1077. Anne Boleyn’s remark that Henry would never defeat Katherine in argument is from CSPSp IV, i, no. 224. A Latin account of Wolsey’s May 1527 court is printed in LP IV, ii, no. 3140, but parts are missing. It was Wolsey who tells us that Henry was anxious to discover the name of Katherine’s informant in ibid., no. 3231. Katherine’s letters to Charles when she felt he was paying her insufficient attention are from CSPSp III, i, no. 621; CSPSp III, ii, no. 67. The dispatch in which Mendoza told Charles of Wolsey’s court is ibid., no. 69. Katherine’s hopes that the affair was only a passing fancy on Henry’s part is CSPSp IV, i, no. 241. The account of the meeting at which the king told Katherine of his scruples is CSPSp III, ii, no. 113 (p. 276). Katherine’s belief that Henry responded to persuasion is from CSPSp IV, i, no. 160. The suggestion that Mary might be sent to France to clear the way for Richmond is ibid., no. 252 (p. 482). Anne Boleyn’s resemblance to a lioness comes from CSPSp IV, ii, no. 584. Katherine’s letter to Charles and Isabella is printed in CSPSp III, ii. no. 571. The queen’s assertion that she and Mary might face martyrdom is CSPSp IV, ii, no. 833. The Venetians’ unflattering descriptions of Katherine are from CSPVen IV, nos. 682, 694. Chapuys describes Anne and Thomas Boleyn as Lutherans in CSPSp IV, ii, no. 664. For Anne’s possession of a French Bible, see Fox (2007), p. 346. Readers interested in religious texts possessed by the Boleyn should refer to James Carley’s unequaled work on the subject: see, for example, Carley (2004), especially pp. 125–31. Additionally, Ives (2004), pp. 239–40 and 269–73, also gives an excellent analysis, and Starkey (2004), pp. 368–75, gives a particularly incisive and informative examination of Anne’s religious values.
Again, I would refer those seeking more detailed analysis of the divorce to Parmiter (1967); Scarisbrick (1968); Kelly (1976); Starkey (2004). Because my main focus is on how the divorce affected Katherine and on how she reacted toward it, I have not attempted to give anything other than relatively basic consideration to the wider issues involved or to the broader international repercussions and diplomacy. Nor have I examined the view explored in Scarisbrisk (1968), pp. 163–97, that Wolsey suggested that the bull was insufficient because it did not cover the impediment of public honesty.
Of the many references to Katherine’s belief that Wolsey was the main instigator of the divorce, LP V, no. 702 provides one example. The reference to Thomas Boleyn paying £4 to Hayes is LP IV, Appendix 99, p. 3116. For an analysis of the significance of the ship jewel, see Ives (2994), pp. 86–87; Starkey (2004), pp. 282–83; Arnold (1988), p. 76; Fox (2007), p. 60. Susan Wabuda’s entry on James Boleyn in ODNB mentions his interest in religion, and for his links with Wakefield and Wakefield’s significance see Fox (2007), p. 68. Wolsey’s reference to Katherine’s “stiff heart” is LP IV, iii, no. 5923. The Duchess of Suffolk’s outburst against Anne Boleyn is from CSPVen IV, no. 761. For the Felipez mission see LP IV, ii, nos. 3265, 3278, 3283. References to Charles’s affection for Katherine and his early actions on her behalf can be found in CSPSp III, ii, nos. 131, 166, 674; LP IV, ii, no. 3312. Of the many accounts of the sack of Rome, my quotations come from ibid., no. 3200. For an analysis of the Knight Mission, see Starkey (2004), pp. 302–10. See also Sharkey (2008). My reference to Katherine’s continuing to make Henry’s shirts, which caused friction with Anne Boleyn, comes from CSPSp IV, i, no 354. Mendoza’s comment that Katherine hoped Campeggio would refer the case to Rome is in CSPSp III, ii, no. 570, while her fears that he would not are ibid., no. 562. Henry’s letter to Anne is LP IV, ii, no. 4742. Campeggio’s instructions are printed ibid., no. 4737. But see also ibid., no. 5073, for the suggestion that Mary might marry Richmond. Campeggio’s belief that even an angel could not change Henry’s mind is ibid., no. 4858. For Chapuys’s visit to Katherine and the nunnery suggestion, see ibid., no. 4856; CSPSp III, ii, no. 586 (pp. 840–41). For Clerk’s complaints about the requisitioning of his house, see ibid., nos. 4753, 4754. Of the many examples which show how difficult Katherine found it to send messages to the pope, see ibid., no. 4881. For her confession to Campeggio, see ibid., no. 4875; CSPVen IV, no. 860; CSPSp III, ii, no. 586 (pp. 842–43). For Doña Elvira’s comments on Katherine’s virginity, see CSPSp I, no. 327 (p. 272). Mendoza’s comment on the difficulties involved in proving virginity is CSPSp III, ii, no. 570. That it was permissible to lie except when an oath is taken is from Guy (2008), pp. 236–37. Starkey (2004), p. 119, rightly points out that Katherine lied to Ferdinand. Katherine’s oath to Campeggio is from CSPSp III, ii, no. 600 (p. 861). Details on Fisher’s interrogation can be found in LP VIII, no. 859 (p. 335, questions 29, 30, and 31 and p. 337, answers 29, 30, and 31). For the brief, see CSPSp III, ii, no. 644 (p. 973); LP IV, iii, nos. 5154, 5177, 5301, 5376, 5468, 5469. See also Parmiter (1967), pp. 72–95; Kelly (1976), pp. 62–67; Starkey (2004), especially pp. 226–32. For Katherine’s interrogation, see CSPSp III, ii, no. 586 (pp. 844–845). For her oath concerning the wording of the brief, see LP, IV, iii, Appendix 211; Pocock (1870), II, p. 431. Interestingly, Chrimes (1972), p. 286 n. 1, points out that Katherine did not protest against consummation during the negotiations for the treaty for her to marry Henry.
Once again I would refer readers interested in more detailed explanations and analysis of the issues touched on in this chapter to Parmiter (1967); Scarisbrick (1968); Kelly (1976); Starkey (2004). An example of the many references to Katherine’s belief that she would never secure justice in England is LP IV, ii, no. 4535; her assertion that no marriage would be secure if hers is dissolved is from the same source. References to Margaret sending lawyers include ibid., nos. 4943, 4944, 4945, 4946, 5681; LP IV, iii, no. 5687 (p. 2516); CSPSp III, ii, no. 586. Vives’s comment is LP IV, ii, no. 4900. Fisher’s allusion to John the Baptist is LP IV, iii, no. 5732. The comment about Katherine appearing with thread draped around her neck comes from Cavendish (1825), I, pp. 162–63. For her speech see ibid., pp. 149–52; CSPVen IV, no. 482; LP IV, iii, no. 5702. Hall (1904) II, pp. 150–53, provides an overall description of the Blackfriars trial. Of the many references to Katherine’s being declared contumacious, see LP IV, iii, no. 5732. For the question of the bedsheets, see Cavendish (1825), pp. 289–90; LP IV, ii, no. 4685; CSPSp I, no. 325. Liss (1992), p. 79, mentions that the sheets used by Ferdinand and Isabella were displayed after their wedding night. The list of those who had returned to Spain but who should be contacted to give evidence on Katherine’s behalf is CSPSp IV, i, nos. 573, 574, 575. The list of the questions that were to be asked is from ibid., IV, i, no. 572. For the trial depositions LP IV, iii, nos. 5774, 5778, and 5791 form a useful beginning, but also see the original documents BL, Cotton MS, Appendix XXVII, fos. 58–82v and Cotton Vitellius B. XII fos. 109–124. Starkey (2008), pp. 108, 164, 199, 281, 317–18, 339, has examined Thomas’s evidence and explored his relationship with Henry VIII with consummate skill. Starkey intriguingly questions whether Thomas perhaps left Henry’s service so shortly after the king’s marriage to Katherine because Thomas’s knowledge of her marriage with Arthur made her feel uncomfortable. While this is, of course, a possibility, I would suggest that it is doubtful since she did not deny spending up to seven nights with Arthur (and Thomas certainly did not witness consummation). It is entirely possible that he simply wanted to return to his native Wales. Campeggio’s complaints of the burden the trial was to him are LP IV, iii, nos. 5713, 4881. My references to Wolsey’s fall and its aftermath are from CSPSp IV, i, nos. 83, 135, 182; LP IV, iii, nos. 5803, 6026 (p. 2683). Katherine’s plea to Charles for Campeggio’s associate is ibid., no. 177; LP IV, iii, no. 5980. Anne Boleyn’s anger that Katherine made Henry’s shirts and Katherine’s open chastising of Henry is CSPSp IV, i, no. 354. Examples of the queen’s continued contacts with Henry can be found ibid., nos. 345, 373; CSPSp IV, ii, 720 (p. 153). Anne’s presence at a banquet is referred to in CSPSp IV, i, no. 222. That she rode pillion with Henry is stated ibid., no. 302. Examples of gifts for Anne can be found in LP IV, iii, Appendix 256; LP V, no. 276. For Durham House see Starkey (2004), pp. 356–58; Colvin (1982), p. 76. My examples of the ways in which Henry and the Boleyns passed their time are from LP V, Privy Purse Expenses, pp. 755, 757, 758, 760. The cost of a yard of satin is mentioned ibid., p. 752. Katherine’s refusal to leave court even to spend time with Mary is CSPSp IV, ii, no. 720, and the letters/message episode between the queen and Henry is ibid., no. 775. Henry’s refusal of Katherine’s New Year gift is ibid., no. 860. References to Katherine leaving the court can be found ibid., nos. 778, 786. Examples of the problems she faced in trying to receive or send letters and messages to her supporters can be found ibid., nos. 160, 422, 509. Her complaint to Charles about her treatment is LP V, no. 513 (p. 239).
Katherine’s letter to Charles is CSPSp IV, ii, no. 860. An example of Chapuys’s derogatory names for Anne can be found ibid., no. 838. Anne’s hostile reception is mentioned ibid., no. 980 (p. 964). LP VI, nos. 923, 964 include references to Anne as a harlot and a whore. I am once more indebted to Dr. Dafydd Wyn Wiliam for bringing the long-lost Welsh poem about Anne to my attention. Fascinating to read, it provides incredible insight into Welsh feelings toward Anne and their loyalty toward Katherine. It can be found in Cynfael Lake (2004) II, pp. 478–79. Anne’s power and the king’s unwillingness to leave her side is from CSPSp IV, ii, nos. 838, 995 (p. 512). Katherine’s response to Anne’s request for her jewels is ibid., no. 1003 (pp. 524–25). LP V, no. 1274, is an account of Anne’s investiture as Marquess of Pembroke. Readers interested in the wider implications of this event should see Friedmann (1884) I, pp. 162–63. Katherine’s letter to Charles comparing events in England with Turkish attacks on the Holy Roman Empire is CSPSp IV, ii, no. 994. For the visit of Barnes and Grynaeus, see Guy (2008), p. 195. Anne’s jubilant response to the Submission of the Clergy is CSPSp IV, ii, no. 635. Isabella’s letter to Charles is CSPSp VIII, Addenda no. 401. Aram (2005), p. 138, mentions Juana’s possession of Katherine’s portrait. Denia’s letter outlining Juana’s interest in her family and in political affairs is CSPSp IV, i, no. 247. The Calais visit is briefly covered in Anglo (1969), pp. 245–46. See also Hall (1904) II, pp. 218–21; CSPVen IV, no. 824; LP V, nos. 1484, 1485, 1492; STC, nos. 4350, 4351; Calais Chronicle (1846), pp. 116–22. See also CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1003 (p. 527) for the fear that Henry might marry Anne at Calais. The words “body” and “heart” come from one of Henry’s love letters to Anne, printed in LP IV, ii, no. 3128; Halliwell (1848) I, p. 305. For the secret marriage of Henry and Anne, see Friedmann (1884) I, pp. 182–84; Ives (2004), p. 161; Starkey (2004), pp. 461, 463, 474–77; MacCulloch (1996), pp. 637–38. My account of when Katherine was officially told of the marriage comes from CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1058 (p. 629). Anne’s procession to Mass as queen is ibid., no. 1061 (p. 643). For the Dunstable Judgment, see LP VI, no. 528. I based my very brief account of Anne’s coronation on Fox (2007), pp. 109–14; Hall (1904), II, pp. 237–39; Ives (2004), pp. 178–79; Starkey (2004), pp. 500–501; Anon. (1533); LP VI, nos. 584, 601, 661. For the major point that Anne was crowned not only with Saint Edward’s Crown but on Saint Edward’s Chair, see Fox (2007), pp. 111, 343. My reference to Mary “the French Queen’s” death and burial comes from David Loades’s ODNB entry. Mary herself refers to her sickness in a letter to Henry, LP VI, no. 693. Suffolk’s hasty remarriage is mentioned in CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1123 (p. 786). The meeting at which Katherine is ordered not to use the title of queen again is referred to in LP VI, nos. 759, 760, 765. Chapuys’s fears that Anne might harm Katherine and Mary is CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1058 (p. 630). The spat over the christening cloth is ibid., no. 1107. Disappointment over Elizabeth’s gender comes from ibid., no. 1124 (p. 789). My details concerning Princess Mary are compiled from ibid., nos. 1123 (p. 819), 1137 (p. 830), 1144 (p. 839), 1161 (pp. 881–82); CSPSp V, i, nos. 10, 23. For the removal of Catalina, see CSPSp, Supp, no. 97 (p. 418); CSPVen III, no. 910. Bernard (2005), pp. 87–101, 101–25, 125–51, 160–67, gives excellent accounts of the opposition of Elizabeth Barton, Fisher, More, and the Carthusians respectively. See also LP VI, nos. 522, 1419, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1519, 1546; LP VII, nos. 498, 499, 500, 1114, 1116, 1563; LP VIII, nos. 661, 666, 815, 876, 895, 988, 996; CSPSp V, no. 156; Guy (2008), p. 3. The remark that the Marchioness of Exeter was Katherine and Mary’s only true friend is from CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1127 (p. 800). For More’s trial and the packing of the jury, see Guy (2008), pp. 185–205. I must thank my husband, John Guy, for the information that Thomas More adopted Thomas Becket as his favorite saint. The reference to Anne’s power is CSPSp V, i, no. 229 (p. 571).
CHAPTER 30: “MINE EYES DESIRE YOU”
Excellent accounts of Katherine’s final years, her illness, and her death will be found in Mattingly (1942), pp. 279–311; Starkey (2004), pp. 541–49. For her plate and possessions, see LP VI, nos. 340, 1194. Her household is mentioned in CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1165. The refusal to provide her favorite wine is CSPSp V, i, no. 26. References to her arrears are from LP IX, nos. 178, 964. Katherine’s remark to Chapuys that she did not want war is CSPSp IV, ii, no. 1107 (p. 775). Of the many references to her change of heart in this matter, I have taken CSPSp V, i, nos. 57 (p. 153), 237. Charles’s recommendation that it was better for Katherine and Mary to take the oath than to die is LP IX, no. 1035. Mary’s comment about her mother is mentioned by Chapuys in LP X, no. 141 (p. 52). For Katherine’s request to nurse Mary, see LP VIII, no. 200; CSPSp V, i, no. 134. Henry’s determination to keep Mary and Katherine apart is mentioned in CSPSp V, i, no. 142 (p. 430). I have based my account of Katherine’s illness and death on LP IX, nos. 964 (p. 323), 1036 (pp. 356, 358), 1037, 1040; LP X, nos. 28, 59, 60, 141 (pp. 49–51); CSPSp V, i, no. 238 (pp. 585–86); CSPSp V, ii, nos. 3, 4, 9 (pp. 15–16). The historian who agrees that Katherine’s actions, albeit beyond her control, helped usher in consequences that horrified her is Starkey (2004), p. 547. Katherine’s “will” is LP X, no. 40; CSPSp V, ii, no. 9 (p. 16); see also BL, Cotton MS, Otho C. X, fo. 216. The lack of an affirmation concerning the consummation of her marriage to Arthur is LP X, no. 142. For Katherine’s last letter, see LP X, nos. 141 (p. 50), 142, 284. I have used Herbert’s translation from Vergil’s Latin, printed in Herbert (1649), pp. 403–4. See also Heylin (1660), p. 9; Vergil (1950), pp. 334–37. For a very full analysis of Vergil’s place in Tudor historiography, see ibid., pp. xxiii–xl. Interestingly, Mattingly (1942), p. 308, prints the letter in full and has no doubt that it is genuine. However, ibid., p. 329 n. 16 (wrongly numbered as n. 15) states that Chapuys gives the gist of this letter and that Katherine also wrote to Charles. In fact, while the ambassador confirms the existence of Katherine’s will (which is extant), the terms in which he refers to Katherine’s last messages suggests that they were oral rather than written—see CSPSp V, ii, no. 9 (p. 15)—and he also passes on her apologies to Charles for not having written personally—see LP X, no. 142. In contrast to Mattingly, Starkey (2004), p. 550, appears more skeptical of the genuineness of the letter to Henry. Henry’s reaction to Katherine’s death is LP X, 141 (p. 51); CSPSp V, ii, no. 9 (p. 19). For her funeral, see LP X, nos. 75, 76, 141 (pp. 50, 51, 53), 282 (p. 102), 284. For Mary’s rejection of Anne’s offer to be a second mother and her fears concerning the oath, see ibid., no. 141 (p. 48). My details on Charles’s reaction come from ibid., nos. 167, 237; CSPSp V, ii, no. 16. Ferdinand’s reaction is CSPVen V, no. 90.
The best account and most thoughtful analysis of Juana’s last years can be found in Aram (2005), pp. 132–61. For the various visits Juana’s family made to her, see ibid., pp. 137–38, 143–46. It is Aram who mentions Juana’s delight when her granddaughter is named after her, ibid., p. 134. Juana’s words when she received Ferdinand’s cross are printed ibid., p. 145. Catalina’s letter to Charles mentioning missing possessions is from CSPSp, Supp, no. 94 (pp. 400–401). For Denia’s letter to the empress, see ibid., no. 99 (p. 422) and for various perquisites, see ibid., nos. 96 (pp. 410–11, 416); 103 (p. 428). Details concerning the beliefs of Isabel de la Cruz and of the concept of inner piety can be found in Elliott (1963), pp. 204–9. See also Aram (2005), pp. 146–56, 168–71. For further analysis of Juana’s life and of her religious views in particular, see Aram’s article in Gómez et al. (2008). Readers interested in how Juana has been portrayed in drama will find Halsey (1978–1979) fascinating. For Juana’s last years, I have also used CSPSp, Supp, nos. 99 (pp. 422–23), 100 (pp. 423–24), 104 (pp. 429–30).
CHAPTER 32: THE SISTERS’ LEGACY
For Anne’s miscarriage and the presents to Jane Seymour, see CSPSp V, ii, no. 21 (p. 39). My references to Anne’s fall are taken from ibid., no. 48; LP X, no. 782. Readers who want a full and detailed analysis of the events surrounding this controversial occurence should see Ives (2004); Starkey (2004); Warnicke (1989); and, for an intriguing new take on the issue, Bernard (2010). The background to Mary’s submission to her father is well described in CSPSp V, ii, no. 70. For a good and comprehensive account of Edward’s life and reign, see Dale Hoak’s ODNB entry. Hoak also analyzes the possible causes of Edward’s death. For Mary’s accession, I have chosen to use CSPSp XI, pp. 106–9, 112–13, 126, 155. Mary is described as being of “low stature” in CSPVen V, no. 934. De Silva’s unflattering comment on Mary’s appearance and the reason why Philip married her can be found in CSPSp XIII, no. 7. Mary’s letter to Charles praising Philip is ibid., no. 33. Of the many references to presents, I have chosen to use ibid., nos. 1, 7, 503. Duffy (2009) refers to La Pelegrina, Plate 1, opposite p. 114. Philip’s attempts to be pleasant to Mary are from CSPSp XIII, no. 37 (p. 31). Mary’s comment on her Spanish heritage is from CSPVen V, no. 934. There are many references to the St. Paul’s obsequies for Juana in CSPVen VI, nos. 89, 138. See also Machyn (1848), p. 90; Strype (1822), part I, pp. 349–50. The Privy Council meeting at which orders were given for the ceremony to take place is in Acts of the Privy Council of England (1890–1964), vol. V, pp. 134–35. Feckenham’s sermon was printed in 1555 and can be found in STC 10744, A Notable sermon made within S. Paules church in London … at the celebration of the exequies of the right excellent and famous princess, lady Jane, Quene of Spayne. The best, most thorough, and most detailed information on the copious preparations for the ceremony, which includes much of what I have said, is not printed and can be obtained only by using the original document source, NA, E 101/427/14. For a full analysis of Mary’s phantom pregnancy, see Loades (1989), pp. 248–51. Charles’s advice to Philip to become involved in English political affairs is ibid., no. 12, advice that Philip confirms he has accepted, ibid., no. 59. See also Guy (2000a), pp. 56–58, for a useful summary of Philip’s involvement. The source for my reference to Mary attacking Philip’s picture is from NA, SP 11/7, no. 66.