Crown of Blood The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey by Nicola Tallis Book Read Online And Epub File Download
Overview: A significant retelling of the often-misunderstood tale of Lady Jane Grey's journey through her trial and execution—recalling the dangerous plots and web of deadly intrigue in which she became involuntarily tangled, and which ultimately led to a catastrophic conclusion.
"Good people, I am come hither to die, and by a law I am condemned to the same." These were the heartbreaking words of a seventeen-year-old girl, Lady Jane Grey, as she stood on the scaffold awaiting death on a cold February morning in 1554. Minutes later her head was struck from her body with a single stroke of a heavy axe. Her death for high treason sent shockwaves through the Tudor world, and served as a gruesome reminder to all who aspired to a crown that the axe could fall at any time.
Jane is known to history as "the Nine Days Queen," but her reign lasted, in fact, for thirteen days. The human and emotional aspects of her story have often been ignored, although she is remembered as one of the Tudor Era's most tragic victims. While this is doubtlessly true, it is only part of the complex jigsaw of Jane's story. She was a remarkable individual with a charismatic personality who earned the admiration and affection of many of those who knew her. All were impressed by her wit, passion, intelligence, and determined spirit. Furthermore, the recent trend of trying to highlight her achievements and her religious faith has, in fact, further obscured the real Jane, a young religious radical who saw herself as an advocate of the reformed faith—Protestantism—and ultimately became a martyr for it.
Crown of Blood is an important and significant retelling of an often-misunderstood tale: set at the time of Jane's downfall and following her journey through to her trial and execution, each chapter moves between the past and the "present," using a rich abundance of primary source material (some of which has never been published) in order to paint a vivid picture of Jane's short and turbulent life. This dramatic narrative traces the dangerous plots and web of deadly intrigue in which Jane became involuntarily tangled—and which ultimately led to a shocking and catastrophic conclusion.
Crown of Blood The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey by Nicola Tallis Book Read Online Chapter One
A Time to be Born and
a Time to Die
‘THERE IS A time to be born and a time to die, and the day of our death is better than the day of our birth.’1 These poignant words were those of the seventeen-year-old Lady Jane Grey, immortalized for posterity in the pages of the exquisitely decorated prayer book that she treasured until her final moments. It is ironic that this courageous young woman of great intellect and character, whose end is so well documented, began her life in such an obscure manner that the precise circumstances of her birth are lost to us. The only certainty is that simply by right of her blood, Jane was born a potential heir to the English throne; she was a member of the royal family, and, more importantly, she was a Tudor. Her family connections would shape her life, and ultimately determine her fate.
Jane’s date of birth has been the subject of debate from almost the moment of her death. Today the debate continues, and the answer has yet to be satisfactorily established. Born into an age in which it was not unusual for such details to go unrecorded, even among the royal family, it is hardly surprising that nobody considered noting the arrival of Jane, who was, after all, one of several girls born into the Tudor family within the past three decades. Jane herself never made any mention of her birthdate, though in several of her surviving letters she referred to ‘my youth’ and ‘my age’ and inexperience in order to stress a point.2 Such a detail may seem trivial, but it is in fact one of the greatest mysteries surrounding Jane’s life. Her youth is central to her story, and as such modern historians have hotly debated it.
For many centuries it was believed that Jane was born in October 1537, just days prior to or after the arrival of Henry VIII’s longed-for male heir, Prince Edward, whose life would come to be so intricately linked with Jane’s own.3 This theory has long since been disproved beyond dispute, due to the fact that on 15 October her mother, Frances, Marchioness of Dorset, was expected to have attended Prince Edward’s christening at Hampton Court Palace, a duty she would have been spared had she either been expecting or recently given birth.4
In fact the likeliest date for Jane’s birth is in the latter half of 1536.5 The most convincing evidence comes from a letter written on 29 May 1551 by Jane’s tutor John Aylmer, to the Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger, in which he noted Jane’s age: ‘And you are well able to determine, in your wisdom, how useful are the counsels of the aged to guide and direct young persons at her time of life, which is just fourteen.’6 Much has been made of Aylmer’s phrase ‘just fourteen’, which has been taken as an implication that Jane had only recently turned fourteen. If this was indeed the case then Jane’s birth must have taken place in the spring of 1537.7 However, when Aylmer’s remark is read in the proper context of his letter, then the implication of a recent birthday falls away. Aylmer continued to inform Bullinger:
For at that age, as the comic poet tells us, all people are inclined to follow their own ways, and by the attractiveness of the objects, and the corruption of nature, are more easily carried headlong unto pleasure ... so to these tender minds there should neither be wanting the counsel of the aged, nor the authority of men of grave and influential character.8
From this it seems clear that Aylmer was in fact using Jane’s age to highlight the difference between the young and the old, stressing an aversion by the young to heed the advice of their elders. It should not therefore be taken as conclusive evidence of Jane’s recent birthday.
If Aylmer was correct and Jane was fourteen on 29 May 1551, then a date in the latter half of 1536 seems probable. Certainly, Aylmer was in a good position to know the truth of the matter, as someone who knew Jane well and who could ‘look upon [her] with affection as a pupil’.9 This would also corroborate the claim from Jane’s Italian tutor Michelangelo Florio that she was seventeen at the time of her death in February 1554, but in her eighteenth year.10 The evidence from those who knew Jane all points towards a birthdate in 1536, and though the precise date will never be ascertained with any certainty, the year at least can be settled without further debate.
Disputed with equal vigour is the precise location of Jane’s birth. According to tradition she was born within the tranquillity of Bradgate Park, the Leicestershire seat of her father’s family. Set in beautiful parkland in which Jane’s family once enjoyed excellent hunting, the romantic ruins of the house can still be seen today, a tangible reminder of its grand Tudor past.11 The ruined tower, still named ‘Lady Jane’s Tower’, once claimed to have hosted the arrival of its famous namesake, while local legend states that Jane was christened in the parish church at nearby Newtown Linford.12 It is true that Jane passed a great deal of her childhood within the red brick walls of Bradgate, and would have been familiar with its sumptuous and spacious rooms, decorated with expensive tapestries and costly furniture, and its ‘fine park’ as described by the Tudor scholar and antiquary John Leland, but it is unlikely to have been the setting for her birth.13 It was not until 1538, shortly before Jane’s second birthday, that her parents took up residence at Bradgate, and prior to this her paternal, rather headstrong grandmother Margaret Wotton was firmly installed there, which makes it an unlikely choice.
It is more probable that Jane was born in London, possibly at her father’s grand town house, Dorset House, situated on the fashionable Strand in Westminster.14 Though at the time of Jane’s birth her parents had probably spent little time there as a married couple, the convenience of Dorset House for the royal court which they attended made it a desirable location. London was a popular choice for the births of royal children, and it may have allowed Jane’s grandmother, who was in control of Dorset House in the same manner as Bradgate Park, to be close at hand for her birth. Today, the splendid house has long since vanished, swallowed up by the buildings of modern-day Westminster.15 However, the few surviving descriptions allow us glimpses of the house that was once one of the most magnificent in the capital. Dorset House was situated only a short distance from the royal palaces of Westminster and Whitehall, and was built in the typical Tudor style around a courtyard, and with domed turrets and fashionable red brick. The house was surrounded by elaborate formal gardens that were full of sweet-smelling flowers and medicinal herbs, and the interior was equally grand. There were spacious apartments for the family, including a modern gallery where they could take exercise during bad weather, and a chapel. The glass in the windows was emblazoned with the family coat of arms, proudly proclaiming its ownership. It was a luxurious house that struck awe into passers-by.
The protocol surrounding the births of royal and noble children was strict, and it seems likely that Jane’s mother followed the conventions of other high-born women and went into seclusion several weeks prior to the arrival of her child. Preparations for the births of high-born children were well organized and elaborate; the lying-in chamber was carefully prepared with a great four-poster bed hung with luxurious and expensive fabrics of the finest quality, and sometimes a birthing stool was provided, the use of which had become increasingly popular during this period.16 Often a roaring fire blazed in the grate, and fresh aromatic rushes were strewn on the floor to sweeten the air. In an attempt to ward off evil spirits the room was kept eerily dark, with the windows closed and covered over, and even the keyholes blocked. The walls were covered in costly tapestries, with the only light coming from flickering candles. In such stifling conditions, there was nowhere for fresh air to circulate. These extremes were all precautions that had been in place for centuries, and they had thus become an accepted part of the process of childbirth. The process was also exclusively female, managed by midwives who were often local women with very little training, and even less understanding of the importance of hygiene. Men were strictly forbidden from going anywhere near the birthing chamber, and Jane’s father would therefore not have been present at the birth of his daughter, having bidden farewell to her mother as she entered her confinement. Though he was banned from the birthing chamber, one can imagine him close by, pacing the rooms of Dorset House in eager anticipation of the arrival of his firstborn child.
Jane was the eldest daughter of Henry Grey, 3rd Marquess of Dorset, ‘an illustrious and widely loved nobleman of ancient lineage, but lacking in circumspection’, and his wife, Lady Frances Brandon.17 The couple were among the leading nobility in the realm, and at the time of Jane’s birth they had been married for nearly three years. Sadly, no likenesses of Henry Grey survive, and the only authenticated image of Frances is that which adorns her tomb effigy in Westminster Abbey.18
On her father’s side Frances had little to boast of in the way of lineage, for the success of the Brandon family stemmed purely from loyalty to the Tudor dynasty. Her father, Charles Brandon, came from a humble family of Suffolk origin, and had himself earned his wealth and title of Duke of Suffolk through nothing more than his own merits and his close relationship to the King.19 However, on her mother’s side Frances had the royal blood of the Tudors. Blood that she in turn passed on to her daughter Jane. Frances was the daughter of Henry VIII’s younger sister, Mary Tudor – ‘a young and beautiful damsel’, and the widowed queen of Louis XII of France – who had made a clandestine, scandalous second marriage in 1515, for love, to her brother’s jousting partner and lookalike, Charles Brandon.20 Brandon had also been married before, twice, making his marriage with Mary his third. Despite the fact that her second marriage made her Duchess of Suffolk, for the rest of her life Mary continued to be regally addressed as the French Queen. Her marriage was a happy one that produced four children: two sons and two daughters. Henry was born in 1516, followed by Frances, her parents ‘first begotten daughter’, and Eleanor.21 At some time prior to 1522, however, young Henry died, for it was almost certainly in that year that he was replaced in the Suffolk nursery with another son, who was also christened Henry.22
Frances was born between two and three in the morning of Wednesday 16 July 1517, at the Palace of Bishop’s Hatfield, twenty miles north of London. According to her father’s own account, ‘she was named Frances, being born on St Francis’s day’.23 Her name may also have been intended as a compliment to the French King, Francis I, with whom the Duke and Duchess were both on friendly terms since Mary’s first marriage.24 Three days after her birth, Frances was christened in the nearby church of St Etheldreda, her godmothers being none other than Mary’s sister-in-law, Queen Katherine of Aragon, and her niece the Princess Mary.25 The Princess was herself only a baby of fifteen months, but she had been named in honour of her aunt, and in time would grow to be close to her cousin and goddaughter.
Frances had passed much of her childhood in the picturesque Suffolk countryside, in the village of Westhorpe that lay just thirteen miles from Bury St Edmunds. The grand Westhorpe Hall, the favoured residence of her parents, dominated the village, and it was here that Frances was raised in the utmost splendour.26
Charles Brandon had acquired Westhorpe Hall in 1514, and following his marriage to Mary Tudor, the couple spent vast sums of money on improvements – in fact, Charles later claimed that the costs totalled £12,000 (£3,865,000).27 Mary in particular seems to have enjoyed spending time there when she was not at court, surrounded by the lush green fields and forests of the Suffolk countryside, and it was here that she chose to establish a household for her children.
A survey taken in 1538 reveals that the house stood in a moat which could be crossed by an elaborate three-arched bridge. The house itself was built partly from stone, and partly from brick covered with black and white chequered plaster. Visitors to Westhorpe Hall were greeted by the sight of a large three-storey gatehouse, while the ‘fair stately hall’ boasted a life-sized statue of Hercules and the lion – almost certainly a tribute to the Duke of Suffolk’s military prowess.28
As well as her siblings, Frances also had the company of her two elder half-sisters. Anne and Mary were her father’s daughters, born of his second marriage, and were aged ten and seven at the time of her birth.29 Frances may also have spent some time with her cousin and godmother, the Princess Mary, for in later life the two would become extremely close, and it seems likely that this bond was forged during their youth. Sadly, however, Frances’s idyllic childhood was shattered when her mother died shortly before Frances was married, though plans for the wedding had been established during her mother’s lifetime and with her approval.30 After all, Henry Grey, too, had royal connections, albeit of a less prestigious nature than his wife’s. Henry was proud of his lineage, and clearly considered himself to be royal, for the German scholar John of Ulm whom Henry had later patronized wrote that he ‘is descended from the royal family with which he is very nearly connected’.31 Ulm also related of Henry that, whether through his marriage or in his own right, ‘He told me he had the rank of Prince.’32
Henry stemmed from the house of Grey, which could trace its origins back to the Norman Conquest, when it is probable that one of the family’s ancestors accompanied William the Conqueror to England from Normandy.33 The family settled in Leicestershire, but they did not rise to prominence until the fifteenth century, when their claim to nobility came in the form of Henry’s great-grandmother, the formidable Elizabeth Wydeville, queen of Edward IV. Before allying with the King, Elizabeth had been married to Sir John Grey, a Lancastrian knight killed during the Cousins’ Wars (later termed the Wars of the Roses) at the Second Battle of St Albans on 17 February 1461. The union produced two sons. It was the eldest of these sons, Thomas, 1st Marquess of Dorset, who was Henry’s grandfather.34 By his wife Cecily Bonville, Thomas in turn had twelve surviving children. It was his eldest son and namesake, Thomas, 2nd Marquess of Dorset, whose second marriage to Margaret Wotton resulted in Henry’s birth.35 Though their marriage was by no means a love match on the same scale as that of the Suffolks’, to all appearances it was a happy one which produced six surviving children. Elizabeth, Katherine and Anne were the eldest, followed by Henry, Thomas and John.
Henry was born on 17 January 1517, almost certainly at his father’s newly built home, Bradgate Park in Leicestershire. He was named in honour of the King, Henry VIII, and spent the first few years of his life at Bradgate and Astley Castle, his father’s Warwickshire estate, under his mother’s supervision.36 Like Charles Brandon, Thomas Grey was in high favour with the King, and this would prove to be extremely beneficial when it came to his son Henry’s education.37 In 1525, through the auspices of his father, Henry was fortunate enough to secure a place in the household of Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, the illegitimate son of Henry VIII by his mistress Elizabeth (Bessie) Blount.38 Richmond was two years younger than Henry Grey, and this, coupled with his rank as the son of a marquess, made him an ideal companion for the young boy and was a sign of great favour for the Greys. Known to his intimates as Harry, young Henry spent four years of his childhood in Richmond’s household, which was established far away from the court in London, at Sheriff Hutton Castle in Yorkshire.39 Though parts of the castle were already falling into disrepair at the time of the party’s arrival, in 1534 John Leland claimed that he ‘saw no house in the North so like a princely lodgings’.40 The apartments Richmond occupied were lavishly furnished and he lived in great state; as such, Henry too became used to living in palatial surroundings. Henry’s place at Sheriff Hutton ensured that he was in close contact with the boy whom many of his contemporaries at one time suspected would be made his father’s heir in preference to the King’s daughter, Princess Mary. The two boys appear to have been close, and Henry also struck up friendships with other boys who were fortunate enough to be members of Richmond’s household. One of these was William Parr, the younger brother of Katherine, future wife of Henry VIII, who would later play a key role in the life of Henry’s daughter Jane. It was a friendship that was maintained until the end of their lives.
From London, Richmond’s godfather, Cardinal Wolsey, controlled his household, but it was Sir William Parr of Horton who oversaw the everyday running of it.41 Appointed Chamberlain, it was Sir William’s responsibility to ensure that his young charge and his companions received an education befitting their status. Education was of critical importance to Henry’s family; his father had certainly been well taught, and Henry enjoyed a splendid education too.42 Alongside his royal companion, at Sheriff Hutton he was instructed in Latin and Greek, both of which he spoke fluently, as well as the French that was essential for members of the aristocracy. Initially, John Palsgrave, who had formerly been employed to teach Frances’s mother French, conducted some of the boys’ lessons.43 Palsgrave, however, found his pupils to be so mischievous that he resigned the following year, to be replaced by Richard Croke.
Henry proved to be incredibly gifted when it came to intellectual pursuits, and an impressed contemporary described him as ‘well learned and a great wit’.44 His interest and enthusiasm for learning continued throughout his life, and in time came to be shared by his eldest daughter, Jane.
Henry remained in Richmond’s household at Sheriff Hutton until October 1529, when, with his companion, he returned to London following the break-up of Richmond’s household. The reason for the sudden return to London is unclear, but it is possible that the King had become concerned that Richmond was not applying himself wholeheartedly to his lessons, and he was installed primarily in Windsor Castle where his father was better able to monitor his behaviour. Henry was just thirteen years old when, a year later on 10 October 1530, his father died at Bradgate Park.45 Through his years of unswerving loyal service to the King, Thomas had become a very wealthy man, leaving his eldest son and heir well provided for. Henry now succeeded his father as 3rd Marquess of Dorset, Baron Ferrers of Groby, Baron Harington and Baron Bonville. His father had been eager that his son should continue with his education, and in his will Thomas Grey had left the great sum of twenty pounds a year (£6,400) to Henry’s tutor, Robert Brock, until the task was complete.46 His father’s wish was one that Henry seems to have been only too happy to fulfil.
At thirteen, however, Henry was a minor, and he now became a ward of the Crown, unable to receive his full inheritance until his twenty-first birthday. Up to that time it was to be held in keeping by his mother, much to his chagrin. The young teenager now spent most of his time at court, bringing him into close contact with other nobles of the realm. Given his youth, it seems unlikely that he spent much time with such men, or saw much of the monarch. In February 1531, however, he is recorded as having dined with the King and the Dukes of Suffolk and Norfolk.47 Suffolk may already have had Henry in mind as a potential suitor for his daughter Frances, although if this was the case he did not yet act on it, and for good reason.
As a youngster with little or no firm male guidance, Henry’s lack of experience managed to get him into trouble on at least one occasion, leading to his temporary banishment from court. The circumstances are unclear, but the Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys, one of the best informed sources of the period, reported to his master the Emperor Charles V that ‘the young Marquis [Dorset] has been forbidden to go to Court for some time, because he has been charged with assembling the people of Cornwall and the neighbourhood’.48 The details of this episode are somewhat baffling, and no other source makes any mention of it. Whatever the truth of the matter, it cannot have posed a serious threat for Henry was forgiven, and his banishment proved to be over within two months. Following his return, though, Chapuys observed that ‘he has been allowed to return more to be under vigilance and some kind of arrest than otherwise’.49 He may have been displaying that rebellious streak that is so common in teenagers; he was also self-indulgent, lazy and incredibly naïve. The English chronicler Raphael Holinshed, who may have known Henry, described him as ‘bountiful’ and ‘very liberal’.50 Holinshed was an evangelical who may have been educated at Cambridge. If this was the case then it could explain how he became acquainted with Henry and why he was so flattering in his description, for not only was Henry a devoted evangelical, but, as Holinshed explained, Henry was also ‘a great favourer of those that were learned’, and later patronized several scholars.51 As he grew older, Henry became fond of hunting and gambling, and would later accrue huge debts that he struggled to pay. The court was the ideal place for him to indulge his vices, and with no male figurehead in his life he ran almost wild. Yet he could also be extremely generous: ‘of nature to his friends gentle and courteous’, Holinshed said, especially to his servants.52 This may have been seen as a weakness by some of his contemporaries, for one observed that Henry was ‘young, lusty and poor, of great possessions but which are not in his hands, many friends of great power, with little or no experience’.53 His mother was alarmed by his behaviour, and wrote to the King’s chief advisor, Thomas Cromwell, of her desire to attend on her son daily at court, presumably to keep an eye on him. Besides that, Margaret also begged Cromwell himself to intervene: ‘whenever you shall see in him any large playing or great usual swearing, or any other demeanour unmeet for him to use, which I fear me shall be very often, I pray you for his father’s sake to rebuke him, and if he has any grace, he will be grateful to you when he grows older’.54 Margaret’s letters to Cromwell reveal that the relationship between mother and son was fraught with difficulties, financial issues being a particular bone of contention.55
On 24 March 1533, the Duke of Suffolk bought the wardship of the sixteen-year-old Henry without his estates at a cost of four thousand marks.56 This gave Suffolk the right to arrange Henry’s marriage, and he had only one bride in mind: his daughter, Lady Frances Brandon. Suffolk had been considering his daughter’s marriage prospects for some time, and probably settled on Henry in 1532.57 It was a marriage, though, that would cause some scandal, for Henry had been previously betrothed. As part of a double negotiation, it had been agreed that Henry should wed Katherine FitzAlan, the daughter of William FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel and his wife Anne Percy. Arundel’s heir, Henry FitzAlan, Lord Maltravers, meanwhile, would be married to Henry’s sister, Katherine.58
It is unclear exactly when this deal had been brokered – it had almost certainly been engineered with the approval of Henry’s father. Henry, however, had other ideas, and under his own auspices he ‘refused’ Katherine in order to marry Frances – a match that was far superior in prestige.59 Precisely when his betrothal was broken off is obscure, but it had certainly taken place prior to 16 November 1532, for on that day his mother wrote to Cromwell to complain about the compensation that had to be paid to the Earl, ‘whose daughter my son refused’.60 This amounted to three hundred marks a year until the sum of four thousand marks had been paid, an exorbitant sum. Margaret begged for Cromwell’s intercession to help reduce the yearly sum to one hundred marks a year, else ‘I shall not be able to marry my poor daughters nor keep my house’.61 However, there had evidently been some attempt to force Henry to marry Katherine FitzAlan, for in the same letter his mother declared that ‘the Earl refused to take my son when the King’s grace was contented that he should have had him after his refusal’.62
The King had almost certainly intervened because Henry was his ward, though the reason for the Earl’s refusal of the match was at this point a matter of pride. Moreover, the nature of the arrangement between Henry and Katherine had been per verba de praesenti (in the words of the present), which meant that they had made an agreement to marry (otherwise known as a common-law marriage). This made their betrothal immediately binding, and meant that it could be consummated at once before a later church ceremony in which they were officially married. Such arrangements were common in the sixteenth century, and were taken so seriously that they were enforceable in a church court. This was almost certainly part of the reason why Henry’s refusal to marry Katherine caused such outrage, although there is no evidence that the union was consummated, and the case was not taken to a church court.63 Unsurprisingly, and in spite of the successfully concluded marriage between Henry’s sister Katherine and Lord Maltravers, relations with the FitzAlan family were frosty. For Katherine FitzAlan, Henry’s refusal of her was an insulting and humiliating snub over which she harboured resentment for some time, and, despite being young and the daughter of a peer of the realm, she would never take a husband.
Frances and Henry may have been formally betrothed following the purchase of his wardship, and it is possible that at the same time her younger sister Eleanor was betrothed to Henry, Lord Clifford, the heir of the Earl of Cumberland. It was common practice to settle the marriage provisions of more than one child at once, and the same arrangement was later put in place for Frances’s own daughters. It is probable that Frances and Henry knew one another prior to their betrothal, for their fathers had been friends and colleagues, but it is unlikely that they knew each other well. What is certain is that their marriage did not take place immediately, and there may have been several reasons for this. Henry’s mother was greatly concerned about the financial implications of the marriage, as is confirmed in a letter she wrote to Cromwell the following February. Margaret claimed that ‘I wrote to my lord of Suffolk that since it was his pleasure to match my son into honourable blood, if he would see me discharged of my bond for support of my son during his minority, I would consent.’64 As the instigator of the marriage, Suffolk had therefore agreed to support the couple financially until Henry turned twenty-one and obtained his majority. Keen, though, to protect his interests, he made it clear that should Frances die before the wedding, he ought to be able to retain Henry’s wardship, ‘to dispose and sell him to my pleasure’.65
There may, however, have been an altogether different explanation for the delay in the marriage, which was the declining health of Frances’s mother. The Duchess of Suffolk had been ailing for some time, and on 30 March, just days after the purchase of Henry’s wardship, she had signed off a letter addressed to Lord Lisle ‘in a very shaky hand’.66 She was in no fit state to organize a wedding, and before her daughter’s marriage could take place she died on 25 June at Westhorpe Hall.67
img
AT THE TIME of their marriage, both Henry and Frances were sixteen. The wedding was almost certainly conducted in the latter half of 1533 in the brilliant surroundings of Suffolk Place, the palatial London residence of Frances’s father.68 The precise date is unknown, but a letter written by the Duke of Suffolk to Henry’s mother on 28 July makes it clear that the marriage had not yet taken place. All that can be stated with any certainty is that the couple were married before 4 February 1534, the first occasion on which Frances is referred to as Henry’s wife in another letter written by Henry’s mother.69 No details of the wedding survive, but it was undoubtedly a lavish affair at which the King himself may have been present.70 More importantly, the marriage sealed the bonds of alliance between the houses of Suffolk and Dorset that were a crucial part of sixteenth-century networking. In the style of many aristocratic matches, it was a marriage made for politics, not passion.
The marriage of Jane’s parents brought Frances Brandon a title – Marchioness of Dorset – but due to her husband’s minority it was, for the moment, in name only. Her mother-in-law was still alive, and continued to be styled Marchioness of Dorset despite her status as dowager. During Margaret’s lifetime, therefore, Frances was sometimes referred to as ‘the Young Marchioness’ in order to distinguish her from her mother-in-law, who was often referred to as ‘the Old Marchioness’.71 Frances was one of the most important ladies in the land, and in later years was always listed immediately after the King’s daughters in order of precedence in all documents and state reports, as well as being afforded a prominent role in ceremonial occasions at court.
Under Henry’s mother’s insistence, the Duke of Suffolk had agreed to support the young couple, and it seems that in order to cut costs, in the immediate aftermath of the wedding he had arranged for his daughter to join the household of her mother-in-law, while Henry returned to court where he had spent much of the last three years. In personal terms this must have been a very difficult arrangement: after all, Henry and Frances were a newlywed couple, and to all appearances their marriage was a successful one. It may have been based on politics, but the evidence suggests that it was a happy marriage, if not a love match in the same manner as Frances’s parents. Sadly, no letters between the couple survive, but Frances’s mother Mary had been the victim of an arranged first marriage, and knew only too well the potentially painful consequences of such a match. As such she would surely have been eager to avoid her daughter being forced into an unhappy marriage. There are numerous examples during this period of unsuccessful arranged marriages, but Frances and Henry were not among them, and lived harmoniously together.72 However, the evidence strongly suggests that Frances was the dominant partner, and this is also borne out by contemporary reports of Henry’s weak character. A seventeenth-century writer claimed that Frances ‘was of greater spirits, but one who could accommodate it to the will of her husband’, and this does appear to have been the case.73 Henry seems to have been perfectly happy, at least at the beginning, to be led by his young wife, and to allow her to make important decisions – especially when it came to the welfare of their daughter Jane.
It has often been claimed that two children were born to the couple prior to Jane’s birth, a son and a daughter who died in infancy. These assertions, though, are not supported by any contemporary source, and the story seems to originate with the historical writer Agnes Strickland in the nineteenth century.74 Strickland appears to have misinterpreted a message written much later by Jane to her father shortly before her execution, in which Jane refers to the loss of ‘two of your children’.75 It has often been assumed that the two children in question refer to two earlier children born by Frances, when in fact the two children in question were undoubtedly Jane and her husband, Guildford Dudley. This becomes clear when the phrase is read in the context of the message written in Jane’s prayer book, in which she attempts to comfort her father: ‘And though it has pleased God to take away two of your children, yet think not, I most humbly beseech your grace, that you have lost them, but trust that we, by leaving this mortal life, have won an immortal life.’76 No other children were ever referred to by either Frances or any of her contemporaries, which makes their existence unlikely. Moreover, Jane was frequently referred to as the couple’s ‘first-born daughter’.77
Jane’s birth would have been a cause of both celebration and disappointment. She was born into a world in which male children were by far the more desirable, but daughters could be useful too. This would become glaringly apparent when the country erupted into joyous celebrations when Jane Seymour gave birth to the King’s longed-for male heir, ‘the goodly prince’ Edward, in the year following Jane’s own birth.78 Any disappointment which Jane’s parents might have felt at her sex may have been overshadowed by relief at the fact that the baby was healthy, which boded well for future births. There was every reason to hope for sons.
Unfortunately no details of Jane’s christening survive, but it is likely to have taken place roughly three days after her birth.79 It was almost certainly conducted in a similar manner to that of her mother’s, which was performed with the utmost grandeur. According to the account of Frances’s father, the Duke of Suffolk:
The road to the church was strewed with rushes; the church porch hung with rich cloth of gold and needlework; the church with arras [a wall hanging made of a rich tapestry fabric] of the history of Holofernes and Hercules; the chancel, with arras of silk and gold; and the altar with rich cloth of tissue, and covered with images, relics, and jewels ... The font was hung with a canopy of crimson satin, powdered with roses, half red and half white, with the sun shining, and fleur de lis gold.80
Jane’s name was chosen as a compliment to the Queen, Jane Seymour, who was probably also asked to stand as godmother to the child. However, it is highly unlikely that the Queen herself attended Jane’s christening; she would instead have sent a representative on her behalf. There is no indication as to who Jane’s godfather was, but it would certainly have been someone of high standing. It may have been the King himself, or perhaps his chief advisor, Thomas Cromwell.
Following her birth, Jane would have been given into the immediate care of a wet nurse, whose responsibility it was to suckle her.81 This was an established practice among royal and noble families – one that had been in use for centuries – as high-born women who breastfed their own children were thought to be unfashionable. The woman appointed for the task would have been carefully chosen and in all likelihood have had previous experience, as well as children of her own who she was feeding at the same time.82 The name of Jane’s wet nurse has not survived, but she was doubtless handpicked by her mother. The wet nurse was responsible for overseeing Jane’s everyday care, and remained with her until she was old enough to be weaned. In accordance with customary practice, Jane’s nursery staff would have also included several rockers, whose job it was to take turns to rock the infant Jane to sleep in her cradle. Her every need was attended to, the arrangements for which were put in place by her mother. Lady Frances had very little to do with Jane’s everyday care, for relatively soon after Jane’s birth she was churched. This ceremony of purification traditionally took place forty days after a woman had given birth, and was a necessary part of sixteenth-century ritual that allowed a woman to resume her place in society and her conjugal relationship with her husband. From then on, all responsibility for Jane’s care rested with those appointed to nurse her. Though it is by no means certain, it seems possible that Jane’s nursery was at least initially established at Dorset House, the likely setting for her birth. Alternatively, the rural Bradgate Park may have been seen as preferable to London.83
Jane’s arrival in the world was of great significance to her family, for in this tiny girl rested many of her parents’ hopes for the future. As the infant Jane lay in her cradle, her parents may already have been making plans for the glittering future that they foresaw for her. She had royal blood in her veins, and they would do all that they could in order to ensure that their ambitions for her were realized. At the time of Jane’s birth, both of the King’s daughters had been declared illegitimate. Thus, though it was not officially regarded as such, Jane’s could be considered the stronger claim to the throne. As Jane grew, so too did her importance, and the pressure her parents put on her to succeed.
|
Full Complete This Book Epub File Download 5 Usd |
Note :- This Download File Is Epub Format So This File Open For Download EPub File Viewer Software. This Software Download For Go Website https://calibre-ebook.com/ Or Second Website Is (www.epubfilereader.com)
Thanks for commenting on Magazine All World. If you have any doubt, please let us know.