National Library Bibliothèque nationale !*lof Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ollawa ON K1A ON4 ORawaON KlAON4 Canada Canada Your hl0 Vorre rdlerence

Our file NaIrire rdiérenca

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une Licence non exclusive licence aiiowing the exclusive permettant à la National Libraq of Canada to Bibiiothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seil reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of ths thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in thls thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial exiracts fiom it Ni ta thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my husband, Bill, who dared me to translate my love of history into something more tangible. Abstract

The English court in the first half of the sixteenth century was the focal point of power, influence, and advancement. A world al1 its own, the court had rules, both unwritten and written, that the wise courtier studied and mastered. As royal servants and royal intimates, Sir William Compton, Sir Nicholas Carew, Henry Norris, and Sir Francis

Bryan moved in close orbits around the Sun of the court: King Henry VIII. Two of their stories ended happily; two did not. What made the difference? What was reqiiired for success at court?

The second question has its answer in a contemporary Italian work by Baldassarc

Castiglione, Il Libvo del Correeiono (The Book of the Courtier). The author outlines his ideal of courtlp behaviour: how to tak. how to act, how to behave towards one's prince.

Through diligent practice of Castiglione's precepts, the courtier acquires the favour of bis ruIer, whicli lie uses for the public good.

if The Courtier is the gold standard, measuring these four careers against its high ideals leads to interestinç, oflen surprising conclusions. Our two "failures" actually appear to have followed the Castiglione mode1 quite closely. The "survivors" seem to have applied only the surface gloss of The Coilrtier. These four stories emphasize a point that Castiglione did not: the ability to read, and adjust to, the political undercurrents of the court was necessary for success in that world. Acknowledgernents

1 wauld like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor, Dr. Carl Ericson, for his help, encouragement, and endless supply of suggestions for source material. Grateful thanks go to Mrs. Jeaii Little, Assistant Microbiologist at the Dr, Everett Chalmers

Regional Hospital, for her patience, understanding, and willingness to juggle work schedules. Special thanks are due to Dr. David Starkey for his permission to cite Iiis unpublislied Ph.D. thesis, and for subçequent assistance and encoiiragenlent. Always, 1 thank my niother for fostering niy love of reading, and for believing in me. Last but certainly not least, 1wish to thmk my husband Bill, for his willingness to step outside his nrea of expertise, for reading and rereading, and for being there. Table of Contents

Page

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter One: Why coine ye to court? ...... 4

Notes ...... 21

Chapter Two: Sir William Compton ...... 26

Notes ...... 34

Chapter Three: Sir Nicholas Carew ...... 37

Notes ...... 50

Chapter Four: Henry Nonis ...... 55

Notes ...... 65

Cliapter Five: Sir Francis Bryan ...... 68

Notes ...... 76

Cliapter Six: "To shape in wordes a çood Courtier" ...... 80

Notes ...... 90

Chapter Seven: "This perfect trade of Courtiersliippe" ...... 94

Notes ...... 107

Conclusion ...... 110

Bibliography ...... 113 Introduction

In Henry VIII's England, al1 roads led to court: to the maelstrom of humanity, intrigue, risk, and reward that surrounded the King. Those privileged to serve Henry at close range had a unique opportuniîy to advance their fortunes, for they were not mere servants; in his boisterous youth, the new King had fllled his court with his Eends.

FoIIowing an exploration of the court itself, this thesis will look at the careers of four such men, close fiiends and body servants of Henry VLII, viewing them through the Iens of an authority ofthe Italian Renaissance. In this way, hopefully, we will get a clearer picture of what was needed for a successful career at court, and what pitfalls were to be avoided.

Our four courtiers, Sir William Compton, Sir Nichalas Carew, Henry Norris, and Sir

Francis Bryan, were chosen because of their prominence in Henry's inner circle. A11 entered Henry's service fairly early in his kingship; they were well-known to contemporaries; their doings were important enough to be well-documented; and their fates were fairly well baIanced within the group. Of these four, two died in their beds, two on the block.

The "yardstick" against which their deeds and misdeeds will be measured is II Libro del Corteeiano (The Book of the Courtier), an idealized picture of the ttalian court of

Urbino. In this book, Baldassare Castiglione presents an image of the perfect courtier: his attributes, his virtues, and what he needs to achieve his goals. In making the Ieap from an 2

Italian court to that of early modem England, Castiglione's theoretical construct survives more or less intact: under Henry Vm, England could be argued to have taken her first taste of the European Renaissance1. ' Thanks to Dr. Gary Waite for suggesting this point. Chapter One: Why Corne Ye to Court?'

Before considering the careers of our featured courtiers, we must examine the milieu in which they operated: the world of the court. This world had its awn unique character, its own rules, and its own atmosphere; it warrants a closer inspection, a look at its purpose, its pressures, and its everyday functioning.

What was the court? The dictionary gives us several definitions: the residence of a sovereign (a place); the sovereign's family and retinue of courtiers (people); the sovereign and state officiais, the ruling power (an institution); and a formal assembly or reception by the sovereign (an event)'. In considering these aspects of the court - the place where it assenibled, the people wiio made it live and work. the political power it represented, and the costly show it displayed over many years, one common element reciirs: the central figure of the sovereign. The court revolved around the monarch; in fact, the court was constituted by his or her presence3. Its splendour had a practical purpose: to display and emphasize the wealth and power of the English Crown, and the man who personified that power. Within the framework of personal monarchy established by his father, Henry VIII held the reins of govemment and patronage firmly in his hands; he could make a man's career or destroy his hopes for himself and his famiIy. Sooner or later, the ambitious found their way to court.

The English court was, at its most basic level, the King's home: the place where he carried out the duties and functions of his office, as well as those more private aspects of 5

his life. The court was in fact held in several homes, but its basic physical layout varied

little fiom place to place. Reflecting the dichotomy of the King's public and private

lives, the rooms in which the court finctioned were divided into the "outward" and

"inward" chambers, each division representing not one but many rooms.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the largest and most important of the outward

chambers had been the great hall, serving as the communal living area for the court and

dining-rooni for King and servants alike. From about the mid-fourteenth century onwards, however, a new trend had appeared: the King and his senior courtiers now

began to dine in the relative comfort of the smaller, more private rooms off the hall4.

Gradually. the great hall became the dining area for the lower-ranking servants and a

venue for court revels and celebrations, a vast arena for hundreds of merry-niakerss.

Next in size to the Iiall, and the first of the King's own outer, more public rooms, was

the great cliamber, often called the guard or watching chamber. It had many uses: dining-

room for household officiais, dormitory for junior staff, and station for the King's Guard;

in addition, it was sometimes used for musical entertainments and cerenionial occasions,

such as feasts held in honour of visiting ambassadors6. Next was the presence chamber,

the main ceremonial room of the court, graced by the cloth of estate, which hung above

the King's chair, strategically placed opposite the entrance. This ensured tliat the King

was the focal point of the room, set apart under his cloth of estate while he dined in

public or received important visitors.

The inward cliambers were another world, the King's actual living area, where he ate

most of liis meals, did much of his work, and slept at night. Access to these rooms was 6 strictly controlled by the King's most trusted servants. Frorn a small set of private rooms

- the privy chamber, closet, bedchamber - there arose a fairly complex suite, which could

include a library, a study, a jewel-house, and a privy gallery leading to the privy gardens

(the actual layout varied with the location)'. in these small, intimate rooms, the King could escape the press of the court, surrounded by his chosen companions. The essential opposites of the geography of the King's world, the public and the private, mirrored the twin aspects of the King's life: the public persona and the imer mang.

As mentioned, the English Crown held many properties throughout the country.

Many of these, however, were not large enough or close enough to the administrative

centre of London to be practical as long-term homes for the court. During Henry's reign,

the "greater houses" on the Thanles were the main setting for England's itinerant court:

Greenwich, Richmond, Hampton Court, Whitehall, and Windsor. Between these and

other smaller royal houses, in addition to occasional stays at the homes of private

individuals, Henry VI11 made 1,150 moves during his 37-year reign9. "Reniovirig", as it

was called, was a huge undertaking, involving transportation of household effects and

fiirnishings, uprooting hundreds of people and requiring long hours of careful packing

and unpacking. But why move at all?

The primary reason for these fiequent moves was hygiene. Keeping siich large,

overcrowded buildings fiom becoming unsanitary and noisome was impossible in a tirne

when indoor running water was nonexistent and persona1 habits lax by modern standards.

The only solution was to rnove on to the next royal dwelling, leaving the vacated house to

be "s~eetened"'~(thoroughly cleaned) and made fit for the next visit by the court. A related reason for a "remove" - often entailing very sudden moves - was an outbreak of plague in the vicinity of the court. Henry ViII had a lifelong dread of ilhess, and was especially temfied of death in the years when he had no legitimate male heu. Such panicked flights often took the King to smaller, more isolated country-houses, the prevailing belief being that the country air was healthier, and given the crowded, unhealthy conditions of the larger centres, there was a grain of truth in that belief.

Summer was the favorite season for progresses; these were extended journeys throughout the countryside, where the King and a stripped-down court might stay at one of the outlying royal properties, at the home of a favoured courtier, or in tents in the open country. Most progresses were yearly jaunts witli no specific goal but to enjoy the hunting along the way; occasionally, a meeting with a brother monarch would take Henry to York or to Dover, or across the Channel to France. The political windfalls from such junkets were often indirect; for example, it was easier for his subjects to rernain loyal to the King if they had actually seen him ride by. As he travelled througliout the country,

Henry could also keep an eye open for abuses ofjustice or for possible trouble-spots.

The basic function of any courtier was to serve the King". Each of the hundreds of

royal servants, high-ranking or low, served as one cog in a vast rnechanism, the royal

liousehold, wliose function was to keep the King's home running as smoothly as possible.

That such efficiency was not easily corne by may be guessed fiom the nurnber and

frequency of attempts to reform and refine its procedures: prominent examples of such

attempts are the Black Book of the Household, issued in the reign of Edward IV, and the

Eltham Ordinances, drafted by Cardinal Wolsey in 15-5-26'?. The institution of the court was comprised of hvo major cornponents: the Domirs

Providencie, or Household (note the capital "H" denoting a court department), the

"belowstairs", responsible for the provisioning of the court; and the Domiis Regie

Magnificencie, (hereinafier referred to as the DRM), the "abovestairs", the King's personal servants".

Of the two departments, the HousehoId was the larger; reporting to the Lord Steward, it wrestled with the huge Iogistical problems of feeding 500-1000 people daily", purchased and stored provisions, doled out wages and other entitlements, and ejected undesirables from the court precincts. The DRM was under the direction of the Lord

Chamberlain, and encompassed two departments, each with its own staff the Chamber and the Privy Chamber (again, the capital letters denote court departnients, rather than actiial rooms). In its fiuiction, the DRM attended to the King's wants and rnaintained the dignity and show of king~hip'~.

The Chaniber staff lived and worked in the outward chambers (see above), and were responsible for the less intimate aspects of the King's semice: serving al1 those eating in the guard or presence chamber, controlling access to those rooms, and ensuring that etiquette was observed by those who were permitted entrancet6. The royal guards and the

Wardrobe staff were also included in the department of the Chamber. This department forrned the boundary between the King and the court as a whole, and maintained the balance between the King's need for accessibility and his need for convenience and caution, as well as privacy".

The Privy Chamber was a new department, which had its begimings in Henry VU'S 9 need for a private sanctum where he could work undisturbed. Called the Secret Chamber by that most retiring of rnonarchs, it had a small and comparatively humble staff. whose low social positions precluded their involvement in power poli tic^'^. Henry VIII, however, was as gregarious as his father had been withdrawn; seeking to surround himself with his boon companions, he appointed his friends to official positions within the Privy Chamber, and gradually other friends became an unofficial part of the department as well. With the advent of men of higher social standing, the Privy Chaniber took on a new political role. Entrée to the inward chambers was strictly regulated by the

Privy Chamber staff.

The head of the Privy Chamber (under the King) was the Groom of the Stool, the

King's persona1 lavatory attendant, chief body servant and supervisor of the rest of the department's personnel, al1 of whorn were male in Henry's time (naturally enough, women were an important part of Mary's and Elizabeth's Privy Chambers). He wns also the only royal servant with the entrée to the royal bedchamber and the other private rooms of the inward chambers, and guarded these rooms from would-be intruders, sleeping on a pallet on the bedchamber floor at night. He might be in artendance on the

King at any time and in any place, and often acted as a confidential messenger for his

rnaster. He aIso canied out several administrative duties, including the management of the private royal treasury that eventuaily becarne the Privy Purse. The Groom and the

Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber were the higher-piaced body servants, who dressed and

undressed the King, attended him at table and in the larger environment of the court. The

GentIemen Ushers acted as masters of ceremonies, record-keepers and supervisors of the 1O lower servants, who included the nienial Grooms, Barber, and Page. The staff of both

Chamber and Privy Charnber perforrned their functions within a fiamework of ceremony and ritual which not only emphasized "the divine dignity that doth hedge about a King"" but served other purposes as weil.

in addition to their duties at court, the men of the Privy Chamber were often given specific duties that took them away from court. The mission rnight be simply to relay a royal command. Otlier assignments might involve a considerable commitment in time and expense: high-level royal servants often served in local government as Justices of the

Peace, and held otlier key county posts as well. A diplomatic mission could take a man to another court for an extended period, and ofien to reciprocal service in that court's

Privy Chamber ("chamber diploma~y"'~).Finally, miIitary service might be required.

Some of these extra-curial posts and activities were very lucrative, and carried with them the exercise of delegated royal authority.

in buildings of fixed size, finding living space for hundreds of people was a logistical nightmare, particularly when the schedule of attendance was not rigidly specified. Most

Household, Chamber, and Privy Chamber staff were entitled to lodgings at court; those of higher status within the court were entitled to better rooms, even private ones. Lower- ranking servants slept in communal rooms, often two to a bed. in addition, many courtiers were entitled, by virtue oftheir social position, to bring servants of their own to court; for example, an earl could bring more attendants than could a knight. The limits imposed on such numbers were fiequently ignored, as a large retinue of servants enhanced an employer's prestige2' and couId be on the alert for his interests (and, by 11 extension, theirs). The inevitable result was an overcrowded building, with tents set up in the grounds to accommodate the excess". Many highly-placed royal servants got around the lodging problem by keeping tom-houses near the court's London homes13.

Payment for court service came in several forms. Cash payments of salaries were paid, not on the basis of time actually spent in attendance, but as a yearly stipend'".

Moreover, this money was not intended to satisfy the individual's every need; his clothing (if livery was wom), "bouche of court" (breakfast materials and incidentals suc11 as candles and fuel) and "diet" (dimer and supper, usually eaten with the other members of their departments) were provided as perquisites of his post". Al1 these allowances cost the Crown dearly every year, and repeated attempts were made at bringing household espenditure under control, which were never quite successfbl.

As previously rnentioned, the court of Henty VI11 was a brilliant showcase of Tudor wealth and power, especially in the King's exuberant youth. Elaborate pageants, rich clothes, and feast-laden tables al1 conspired to hide the primitive discornforts of life in early modern England. Both views, however, warrant our attention.

The rooms in which Henry's court lived and worked and ate and laughed were decorated in glowing colours, reds and blues and greens offset by the gold that eniianced heraldic designs and briglitened the ceilingsZ6.Heavy tapestries warmed the wainscoted walls, their picture-stories hand-stitched in bright silks and set with pearls". Carpets

hushed footsteps in the royal apartments; window-seats were heaped with cushions of

velvet and brocade. The great rooms were sparsely furnished, but the few chairs, stools

and benches were of heavy, carved wood; cupboards and chests provided storage spaceZ8. 12

Outside the palaces, the gardens bore the stamp of the Renaissance compulsion to impose the wiI1 of man on nature", with fantastic beasts and other devices laid out in exotic patterns.

Henry's courtiers moved against this splendid background in their own finery, arraying themseIves in styles borrowed from other courts, but chiefly from France3'.

Styles changed frequently and vast sums were spent on expensive fabrics, including cloth of gold and silver. Velvet and darnask garments, stiff with jewels and trimmed witli costly furs, were embruidered with gold and silver thread in symbolic designs. These confections were immensely heavy and hot, and were not washable (shifts and under- shirts of fine linen were worn undemeath the outer garmerits). The cost of rnaintaining a fashionable image at court was staggering: "whole estates were worn on courtiers' backs"". In the rnidst of such opulence, Henry was in a class by himself, more dazzling than any other in hi5 gold-bedecked splendeur. From his jewel-encrusted cap to his gold- embroidered skirts, lie stood out among his court as a being apart, wiiich had more practical value tlian mere vanity.

-4s a Young man, Henry wote, "Pastance with good company/I love and shall until I dieu32 , and his court, particularly in the first years of his reign, was awhirl with activity.

Courtiers took part in the many entertainments either as active participants or as adrniring spectatots.

Court revels included pageants, disguisings, and masques. Tbese were allegorical set-pieces which might involve simple plots, dancing, and role-playing, in which the King took an enthusiastic part. These great productions showcased the talents of Henry and his favoured courtiers before the rest of the court and the public. Their cost was enormous, and the Revels records are full of orders for veIvets, cloth of gold, jewels - al1 the genuine articlej3. From a Iarger perspective, however, this was money well spent, contributing not merely to amusement but to public image.

The toumament was a celebration of the arts of war, carried on before an audience.

Like the indoor revels, the toumament was a central part of any major ceremonial occasion, and it, too, had eIements of a dramatic performance3". Artificial forests and symbolic beasts heightened the theatrical aspect, but the martial exercises were the main

focus. In the Joust Royal (tilting), hvo knights rode (separated by a six-foot-high barrier) at each otlier with bluntcd lances, airning to udiorse each other or to shatter their lances on each other's heads or chests. Since the heavily-amed cornpetitors often met at cornbined speeds of 50 mph. injuries were c~rnrnon~~.Tounieys were mock battles,

fought by mounted knights with swords, and foot combats were also popularjb. Eacli

participant might perform many tirnes in the course of the tournament, which often lasted

several days. Henry VIII exceIled at the joust, and his courtiers vied for his approval of their skills. SeveraI of his closest fiiends were also Iiis favorite joiisting companions.

As entertainiilg as they were, such displays were underlaid by practicality: not only

did the elaborate armour and costumes flaunt the wealth of the English court, but the

fighting spirit cf England's finest men was on show for al!, native Englishman or

watchful foreign envoy, to see. in addition, the tournament provided a reasonably

harmless outlet for the cnergies of Tudor courtiers, who might othewise, tlirough

idleness, be misspending those energiesJ7. 14

Court occasions always involved feasting, which sometimes went on throiighout the day and well into the night. Ceremony and gluttony went hand in hand: on the tables of the great hall would be spread vast arrays of venison, beef, mutton, Swan, stork, and custards, with gallons of ales and wines to wash thern down. Another round rnight bring various gme-birds, jellies, tarts, then fruit to end this orgy of eatin2'. Between courses, edible sculptures called "subtleties" wouId appear, in sbapes fiom historic scenes to

dancing maidens".

Between festivals and holidays, sports such as tennis, bowls, and bear-baiting were

popular spectator sport, and hunting was popular among al1 ranks. Henry VI11 was

devoted to the l~unt,and his court hunted regularly, although not a11 were as avid as he:

one weary courtier described the King as "converting the sport of hunting into a

martyrd~rn'~"in his youth Henry was renowned for tiring six horses in one day'ç

hunting. Indoor games included cards, dice, and tables (backgaminon), with gambling an

inevitable accompanirnent. Al1 the Tudors (except, passibly, Edward VI) were avid .-~aniblers'", and their accounts show regular payments of gambling debts. Another indoor

pastime was the pursuit of courtly love, encompassing activities fiom innocent flirtation

and adoration of a remote lady to serious intrigueJ2. The formulait protestations of this

old game could prove dangerous if misconstrued, as Henry Norris wouId discover to his

cost. Finally, there was music, a Tudor passion: from the professional musicians and

singers of the King's M~sick~~to the varying skills of the courtiers to the King's oivn fine

performances and compositions, there was nearly always music at court.

As previously mentioned, there was more to the costly dispiay than mere 15 entertainment or pastime; the main raison d'itre for courtly splendeur was the fostering of an image. The central focus of al1 the pageantry, jousting and banquets was the power, wealth and authority of the English Crown, and of the man who embodied those attributes. Henry VIII's every move was expected to bear out a blend of magnificence, dignity and power: his maiestas, his image of noble kingship in the sixteenth-century

mold4'. The display of the court thus became a public-relations campaign, emphasizing the Crown's power and wealth to foreigners, such as the Venetian ambassadorsJS,and the weight of the Crown's authority to the English people. It rnust be remembered that many court spectacles were open to the public, and such occasions formed a tight bond between

King and people that later Tudors took care to maintainJ6. Certainly the cost was

prodigious: as far back as the reign of Edward IV the Crown had striven for magnificence cornbined with controlled expenditure4'. The Tudors who followed him aimed at the

same goal, with varying degrees of success.

Beneath the gold and velvets, life in Tudor England involved certain gritty realities,

and the congested buildings where the court existed had their own special problcms. The

link between good health and clean surroundings had yet to be established, and even with

the best of intentions (Henry VUI drew up strict rules for his own roon~s'~),a crowded

palace with no running water soon became uninhabitable. Except in the royal apartnients?

floors were covered with rushes. This covering quickly became saturated with spilled

food, beer and animal wastes; nor were men shy about withdrawing to a corner of a room

instead of making use of the garderobes g ri vie^)'^. When the floors became unbearable,

fiesh layers of rushes were laid down over the old ones. in such an atmosphere, fleas and other verrnin bred readily; the accepted control was to Wear a patch of fur to attract the fleas to one spots0. There were other discomforts: cold, drafty buildings (the tapestries helped to keep the cold air out), over-crowded roorns, and the aches and pains of vanous health problems in an age when painkilling dmgs were unknown. Also, the rigid ceremonial and etiquette placed no ban on spitting on the floor, picking the teeth at table, or wiping the nose on the sleeve. One can hardIy be surprised at the regular outbreaks of plague, sweating sickness, and other ailments.

Grime and fou1 odours were nut the only unpleasantness encountered at court. Its crowded, competitive atrnosphere lent itself to certain abuses, which (to judge fiom the repeated attempts to "clean house") had been gaing on for some time. A good example was service supplied, not by the person drawing the salary, but by one of & servants - service by proxy. Bath this problem and that of bringing more servants to court than a courtier's station permitted were specifically addressed in the Eltham 0rdinances5'.

As can be imagined, the household generated a great deal of leftovers of many types: candle ends, nearly-empty wine casks, unfrnished dishes fiom feasts; in theory, the candles were to be recycled, the food was to be distributed to the poor. In fact, royal servants had fallen into the habit of regarding such items as a perquisite of office; petty thievery had become the semi-Iegitimate practice of ''gleaning"5'. Much of this material was sold, some kept for a servant's own use. Outright thievery of eating utensils, decorative items, or other srna11 items was aIso a result of a system which had too few guards to police the entire household and officials who might well be taking bribes to ignore such peculation. Theft had become such a fiequent occurrence on progress (when 17 the court stayed at a private individual's home) that it, too, was tackled in the Eltham

Ordinances. The royal servants had been known to take "lockes of doores, tables, ...and other ymplements of ho~sehold"'~fkom the host's house. As the Ordinances noted, this did not help the King's image at all, nor would it incline any country landowner to offer his home to the King and his court. That honour was expensive enough without thievery.

Violence was an ongoing problem at court, and men of most ranks were usually armedSJ. Quarrels could break out over a dice game gone sow, a slight (real or imagined) to one's honour, or the allotment of a room. Although the society of the time was violent by nature, this violence was accentuated in the environrnent of the court, largely made up of hot-tempered, rnostiy young men who generally acted first and asked questions late+'.

It has been suggested that, after disease, the main hazard faced by the King was violence; protection against assassination was virtually impossible, and barely attempt~d~~.An interesting speculation has it that the elaborate ceremony of court function served two purposes: it provided a useful check on this endemic violence and it endowed the often menial tasks which courtiers were assigned with a new importance, almost a glamours7.

What made court attendance so appealing to so many different types of people?

Prestige must certainly have been one drawing card; in spite of the crowds and the noise, it was a feather in one's cap to Wear the gorgeous clothes of the courtier and to be seen in the throng about the King. For most of those who jammed the palace rooms, howwer, there was another, greater goal: power. Having reached that goal, one could influence policy and raise the fortunes of family, fiiends, or oneself. How to achieve that power?

Access to the King was crucial to this quest: he was the key figure in the centralized 18 monarchy of the ~udors'~,and the focus of the political forces of Er~gland~~.Close attendance on the King within the context of his everyday life made such access possible, and so service at court, particularly within the DRM, played an essential role in the lives of the ambitious. Permission to corne to court could be a weather sign of royal favour, since the best hope for advancement lay in access to the monarch; on the other hand, a surnrnons to court could mean the very opposite, especially in crisis situations, since it was often safer for the King to have an untrustworthy man under his close ~crutin~~~.The two sides of the game courtiers played in search of their goals were petition (the requesting of benefits) and patronage (the rewarding of such benefit~)~',and the King was all-important to both.

To succeed at this game, courtiers had to acquire and develop certain skills that went

beyond making small talk in anterooms or unhorsing an opponent at the joust. Outward

polish such as politeness, courteous behaviour, and personal hygiene (at least, to

contemporary standard^)^' had to be matched by a sixth, political sense. When was the

King most approachable? When was it best to steer clear of the royal ternper, always

unaccountable? What ançwer did a royal question require, the one His Majesty wanted to

hear or the tmth as one saw it? An instinct for political survival and a flexible sense of

alignment with the King's policy could be the difference between life and death, political

or othenvise. Differing views existed concerning the best approach to influence at court.

For those not endowed with great wealth or rdof their own, a cornrnon road to

political power was to link one's fortunes with those of a court faction. This was a group

which clustered around a leading minister andlor nobleman who could make smooth the path to the King63. As a leader's fortunes rose, those of his faction usually did as well.

There was an obvious risk; in the event of a clash between factions, or of a purge orchestrated by several other factions [ternporarily] allied in a cornmon cause, al1 members of an ûusted faction could find themselves in danger of losing livelihood or life itselPJ. It has been suggested that Henry VIIi deliberately fostered faction conflict as a means of "dividing and conquering" his court; no faction kept the outright lead for an extended period, thus allowing the King to reserve ultimate control to himselps. Even so powerful a man couid be influenced, however, especially by those closest to him.

Those who achieved a post in close attendance on the King, especially his intimate body servants of the Privy Charnber, were almost a caste apart in the world of the court.

As previously mentioned, these select royal servants were "on call" for long hours and often assigned menial or time-consuming tasks - what lent them the respect and authority they were routinely accorded? Dr. David Starkey makes a convincing case for

"representation througb intirna~y"~~,in which close personal contact with a divinely- anointed King endows the servant with some of the royal charisma. While this is admittedly a mystic concept, it must be reniembered that in Henry VIII's England, the link between the King and the Deity was very strong in the public mind, especially after

Henry assumed the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England6'. Paired with this metaphysical idea is the more worldly notion that these men were close to the King, who knew them well; if he placed his confidence and trust in hem, they must speak and act with a measure of his authorityds. In addition, many of these men were not only Henry's intimate servants; they were also his fiiends, his chosen cornpanions who shared his 2 O interests and his leisure tirne. Finaly, as holders of hi& office at court and of influential extra-curial posts in diplomacy and local govemment, they were in a position to assist petitioners in their approach to the King69. Perfoming favours of this sort ofien brought them pleasant rewards7', and enhanced their reputations as men of influence.

Under the Tudors, the Crown had gathered to itself a11 political loyalties; as the source of al1 political advancement, the Tudor court reinforced the central authority of the

Crown". Despite its dangers, its tensions, and its disappointments, it attracted those who sought power in many fonns and toward various ends. Courtiers found their lifestyles irrevocably altered as they developed expensive tastes: for food, for gambling, for self- adornment7'. This was the court: a stew of ambitious humanity, spending money to further their fortunes; an arena for dizzying success or terrible disappointment; a place of glamourous, if dangeroiis, fascination. Alexander Dyce (ed.), The Poetical Works of John Skelton mew York: AMS Press, 1965), 1I: 39.

' The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 8: 1057.

' E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), 1, 7.

' Simon Thurley, The Roval Palaces of Tudor Enaland: Architecture and Court Life, 1460- 1547 &ondon: Yale University Press, 1993), 1 13.

' Ibid, 120.

fi Ibid., 123.

Ibid., 137.

' Periry WilIiams, The Tudor Re~ime(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 24.

'O Ralpli Dutton, Endish Court Life: from Henry VI1 to George Il (London: B. T. Batsford, 1963) 34.

" Carolly Erickson, Great Hamy: the Extravagant Life of Henry VIII (New York: Surninit Books, 1980), 106.

''David Starkey, "The King's Privy Chamber, 1485-1 547" (unpublished Cambridge Ph. D. thesis, 1973), 1 33, 136.

l3 David Loades, The Tudor Court (Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes and Noble, 1987), JO; Williams, 49.

IJ Erickson, 97.

l5 Lacey Baldwin Smith, A Tudor Tragedy: the Life and Times of Catherine Howard (London: Jonathan Cape, I961), 87.

l6 Thurley, 12 1.

" Loades, 45. David Starkey, "lntimacy and Innovation: the rise of the Privy Chamber, 1495- 1547" in The Endish Court: From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War ed. David Starkey (London: Longman Group, l987), 76.

l9Smith, 87.

'O 'O Starkey, "Intimacy and Innovation", 84.

?' Erickson, 10 1.

" Lacey Baldwin Smith, Henry VIIi: the Mask of Royalty (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 1982), 88.

l3 Thurley, 129.

" Robert C. Braddock, "The Rewards of Office-Holding in Tudor England", The Journal of British Studies 14 (1975) 2,33.

Chambers, 51

'6 Elizabeth Burton, The Earl~Tudors at Home. 1485-1558 (London: Penguin Books, 1976), 116; Smith, Tudor Tra-edy, 90.

" Smith, Tudor Traeedy, 90.

" Burton, 105.

29 Smith, Tudor Tragedv, 99.

3u David Loades (ed.), Chronicles of the Tudor Kings (New York: Viking Penguin, 1990), 113.

" Smith, Tudor Tragedy, 91.

3' Neville Williams, Heny Vm and His Court (New York: The MacMillan Company, 197 l), 34.

33 Alison Weir, The (London: Pimlico, 199 1), 9 1.

34 David Starkey, Rivals in Power: Lives and Letters of the Great Tudor Dynasties (New York: Grove Winfield, 1990), 98. " Alan Young, Tudor and Jacobean Toumarnents (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Sheridan House, 1987), 67.

36 Sydney Anglo, Spectacle. Paaeantry and Earlv Tudor Policv (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19691, 110; Steven Gunn, "Tournarnents and Early Tudor Chivalry", Histoty Todav41(June 1991). 15.

37 Erickson, 60.

la Smith, Tudor Trapedy, 89.

'' Erickson, 19 1 ; Smith, Tudor Trayed~,89.

'O Weir, 77.

Loades, Tudor Court, 96.

" Neville Williams, "The Tudors: Thee Contrasts in Personality" in The Courts of Europe: Politics, Pationa~eand Ro~alty.1400-1 800 ed. by A. G. Dickens (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977), 155.

'''Loades, Tudor Court, 6.

'' Sebastian Giustinian, Four Years at the Court of Henry VlTl ed. and trans. Rawdon Brown (London: Smith, Eider & Co., 1854), 1: 85-86.

Dutton, 3 1.

." A. R. Myers, The Household of Edward IV: The Black Book and the Ordinance of 1478 (Manchester: The University Press, 1959),38.

" Dutton, 34.

J9 Weir, 90.

Erickson, 26.

5 1 EItham Ordinances (1526) (London: Society of Antiquaries, 17901, cap. 40, p. 149; cap. 33, p. 147. (Note: hereinafter cited as E'D.)

'' Smith, Hen~VIII, 92. s3 E.,,cap. 30, p. 145

'' Smith, Tudor Traeedy, 96.

" Loades, Tudor Court, 95; Smith, Tudor Traeedv, 96.

j6 Loades, Tudor Coufi, 89.

57 Smith, Tudor Tragedy, 96-97.

Lewis Einstein, Tudor IdeaIs (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962), 13; G. R, Elton, "Tudor Governrnent: The Points of Contact, Lii: The Court" (Transactions of the Roval Historical Society, 1 W6), 2 12.

Loades, Tudor Court, 85.

" Erickson, 3 1,

66 David Starkey, "Representation Through Intimacy: A Study in the Synibolism of Monarch and Court Offrce in Early-Modern England in Syrnbols and Sentiments: Cross- CiiIturaI Studies in Symbolism ed. Ioan Lewis (Landan: Academic Press, 1977), 187.

67 Antonia Fraser, The Wives of Heny VIlI (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1W), 3.

68 Starkey, "Representation Through Intirnacy", 2 1 1.

69 J. S. Brewer et al (eds), Letters and Papers. Foreign and Domestic. of the Reim of Heny ViiI (London: Longrnan, Green, Longman & Roberts, 1862), IX,642 (Note: hereinafier cited as L.)

-L. P. vm, 1s. " Loades, Tudor Court, 185. Chapter Two - Sir William Compton

William Compton was of country gentry stock. His father, Edmund Compton of

Compton, Warwickshire, was a gentleman farmer, holding the manor of Compton

Wynyates and several tenancies. Compton senior does not seem to have been a very influential man (not, for example, a Justice of the Peace)'. On his father's death in 1493, eleven-year old William became a ward of the Crown and was brought up at court, eventually appointed a page to the King's second son, Henry, who was then Duke of

York. Although the future King Henry VI11 was nine years younger than the orphaned

Compton, a deep friendsl~ipgrew up between the two young men', which Henry was quick to acknowledge on his accession in 1509.

The new King's Privy Chamber was staffed with Henry's servants from his days as

Prince of wales3. Ln direct contrast to his father's "distant" kingship, Henry VI11 was a

"participatory" monarch, surrounding himself with old friendsJ, Foremost among these was Compton. His rapid rise revived a court role that had been dormant since the reign of

Edward N, that of royal favorite5. He was soon appointed Groom of the Stool, a post which gave him close and constant access to his royal friend. While his predecessor under Henry Vii, Hugh Denys, had remained behind the scenes as a relatively humble royal servant of limited influence6, Compton, as a royal favorite, had a unique opportunity to extend the prestige and puwer of his new post7. It was an opportunity that he exploited to the full. 37

This is not meant to imply that he would have been satisfied with one office. A pIace at court was a stepping-stone to further perquisites, and the closer one's post to the King, the more opportunities one had of being at the right place at the right tirne, During his tenure at court, Compton accumulated extra-curial offices and grants to an unprecedented extent. Inevitably, his power and influence in the counties where he heId offices increased with lis wealth. He never forgot, however, that he owed everything to his King

"of wliorne 1 haue had al1 my preferment"8, and (with very few exceptions) remained close to Henry throughout his career, fùlfilling the duties of his many offices by means of deputiesg.

His intimacy with Henry VITI was made manifest in January 15 10, when a group of gentlemen arranged a joust at Richmond, where the Court liad just celebrated Cliristrnas.

The new King, who had not yet participated publicly in a tournament, arranged to join in the jousting incognito, attended only by Compton, likewise disguised. The two "came to the Iustes, vnknowen to al1 persones, and vnloked for", and attracted "greate praise" for their performances. Their identity was unexpectedIy (alrnost tragically) revealed when

Compton, ninning against Sir Edward Neville, was badly injured "and was likely to dye."

A spectator (who had guessed the King's identity) cried "God Save the King!" and the king "discouered hymself, to the greate cornforte of al1 the people10."

This escapade reveals the extent of Henry's affection for, and trust in, his fiend.

Compton was his sole CO-conspiratorand confidant in a risky venture; it must, afler all, be remembered that jousting was a dangerous sport (witness Compton's near-fatal accident on that very occasion), and that Henry had, as yet, no heir. 28

Although most of the surviving evidence for Henry's fnendship with Compton is circumstantial (records of gants, etc.), a 15 10 letter relates the story of an incident which, if true, indicates the complete trust the King placed in his Groom of the Stool at this tirne.

The Spanish Ambassador, Don Luis Caroz, reported that a sister of the third Duke of

Buckingham was "much liked" by the King, and that Compton "carried on the love intrigue ... for the King". Furthemore, he reported, the Duke intercepted Compton in the lady's apartments and "quarrelled with him ... he was severely reproached in many and very hard words." Compton must have gone to the King with the story, since Henry

"reprimanded the Duke angrilyll." The lady in question is believed by modern scholars to have been Lady Anne ~astings". This story is open to question, since the Anibassador raises the possibility that Compton was pressing his own suit on the lady, but why should the King have been so angry with Buckingham if the Duke's reproaches were directed solely at Compton?

Ifjousting witli (and pandering to) the King were among his unofficial duties as a friend, wliat were his official duties as Groom of the Stool? Certainly, he acted as the

King's closest body servant, attending Henry at the Privy Stool and sleeping in the royal bedcliamber at night; he was in charge of the royal plate and jewels in everyday use; and he was in nearly constant attendance on his master. However, as time went on,

Compton's post assumed other functions which were more administrative in nature.

For one thing, Compton was gradually handling larger and larger sums of money for the King's use; thousands of pounds were being drawn at irregular but frequent inter val^'^. Another new duty was quasi-secretarial. Since the King was well known to 29 detest the act of writing, even his own signature, state papers requiring that signature tended to pile up. Knowing the King as they did, his closest servants were the best judges of the right moment to approach the King with a batch of documents, and gradually the

Groom of the Stool became the man in charge of this essential function''.

To the courtier, military service was both an opportunity for gain and a reflection of one's standing. Since there was no standing army in Henry's time, going to war meant issuing a cal1 to arms, and prominent men of influence would muster as many men as they could afford to outfit. It is an indication of the wealth and power that Compton was fast accumulating that, in 15 13, he was able to muster 578 men for the invasion of

France; the total number mustered by the rest of the Chamber staff was 57915. Making good use of the chance to win military laurels, he was knighted in September of that year for his role in the Battle of the spurs16. A more peaceable encounter with the French occurred in 1520, when Compton was a member of the English entourage that met the

French court at the Field of Cloth of Gold, an extravagant summit meeting between

Henry VI11 and Francis 1 of France.

in 1523, he was sent to the Scots Border to assist the Earl of Surrey in military operations. While his position was that of a secondary commander, as Groom of the

Stool he brought with him a whiff of the royaI charisma, and Surrey commented on the morale benefits of having "gentlemen of the King's house" with the army".

It is worth noting that a contemporary writer, Polydore Vergil, thought that Compton had been sent to the Border by Cardinal Wolsey to get him away from the King for a time, thus leaving the field of royal favour clear for the Cardinal-statesmar~'~.The fact that the mighty Cardinal was believed to hate (or fear) Compton to such an extent is, in itself, a comment on Compton's established position as royal favorite. His constant attendance on the King made him a useful contact for nobles and ambassadors alikelg, and he did not scruple to accept their gifts and pensions".

A drive for refonn in the structure of the King's Chamber and Household departments led to the introduction of the Eltham Ordinances of 1526. Thought to have been the brainchild of Cardinal Wolsey for the purpose of ridding the Privy Chamber in particular of his rivals and mernies'', the Ordinances laid down in some detail the duties of each post within al1 departments, how many posts would be available within each rank, and which person should hold which office. Item 62 specifically States "that Mr, Norres shall be in the roonie rie. post] of Sir William Compton"'?.

The story behind this changing of the Privy Chamber guard is a revealing one.

Knowing that there would be "A prouysyon for such as shuld be dyscharged out of the kynges preue chambre"", Compton drove a hard bargain for a cornpensatory office.

Angling for a position which carried with it a seat on the Council, he was eventually compensated for the Ioss of his Privy Chamber office with a post previously held by Sir

Thomas More, that of Undertreasurer of the Exchequer. Having kept the King's accounts for so many years, Compton was well-qualified for the position, and it carried a good salary". As was customary for those surrenderiiig ofice, Compton received a pardonI5; also, he was granted permission to keep his hat on in the royal presence'6. Obviously,

Compton had by now become powerful enough to insist on a substantia1 compensation for the Groom's officeL7. 3 1

Just how powerful he had actually become was made clear when he died of the sweating sickness in June, 1528. It was unusual for a man of rank to fa11 victim to epidemic illness, since those with means were generally able to flee the city (where the contagion was worst, given the crowded conditions of the time) for the healthier air of the c~untry'~.He was thought to have been "lost by negligence, in letting him sleep in the begi~ingof the ~weat"'~.Before his executors could act to protect his property, it was pIundered by his servants; as soon as the news of his death got out, the vultures were gathering, soliciting the offices he had held3". The King asked Wolsey to provide a list of the offices in question, many of which could not be assumed by Compton's heir, who was only six years old3'.

Neither Wolsey nor the King had known the extent of Compton's office-holding, and

both must have been surprised to discover the vast number of offices, grants, and

holdings he had managed to amass3'. Not only was Compton in possession of a large

cross-section of royal properties and offices relating to thern, he was believed to have

used one royaI castle as a source of building materials for his chief country seat at

Compton Wynyates in War~ickshire~~,In addition to the local influence that he wielded

as a Justice of the Peace and a landlord (he held lands in 18 counties at the time of his

deathJ4),he was also able to exercise patronage at the local level by farming out his far-

flung duties to deputies, which extended his afinity @ower-base) still furthe$'. Among

his holdings were lands formerly held by his old nemesis, the Duke of Buckingham,

executed in 152 136.

Marriage to an heiress, Wereburga Brereton, fitted the pattern of Compton's ambitions, but the marriage he had originally sought would have been even more advantageous. in 15 19, he launched an unsuccessful suit to marry the widowed Countess of Salisbury3', who not only possessed extensive estates but a royal Plantagenet pedigree.

Compton was cited in an ecclesiastical court for living in adultery with a married woman, the Lady Anne HastingsJ8; one author refers to her as his "cornnion-law wife"jg. (She was a beneficiary of his dl.) If this was the same lady as Compton was thought to have wooed for Henry, the possibility exists that Compton had his own desires in mind when he approached her in 15 10.

Compton seems to have subscribed to the conventional piety of early-modem

England, specifjing in his will that two chantries were to be founded at Compton

Wynyates and leaving forty pairs of church vestments to be distributed among the parishes nearest his main properties in Warwickshire and WorcestershireJO.No doubt it was his pious conscience which pricked him wlien he wrote to his executor admitting that

"Certen Sommez of monay & Iuelles of the kinges hath Corne To my handes and nott paide & deliuerid accordyngly .., 1 will that ... in Recompens theroff pay vnto the kinges Grace ,.. 1000 marce besides my Bequest ... in my will ~pecifid."~'

111-gotten or otherwise, Compton's gains as a royal office-holder had been immense.

Because of the fees paid to deputies and other expenses involved in the maintenance of widely scattered posts, it is dificult to come up with exact figures for Compton's "worth" at the time of his death; however, a receiver-general's account for 1524 yields a total gross landed inconle (from royal holdings alone) of £1,689". An inventory of his possessions at the time of his death valued the various articles at £4,485; here again, this figure is inflated, since at least some of the items listecl were actually royal property in

Compton's keepingj3. When we consider that he had married, bought, and leased lands which would not be included in this total, and that he was able to increase his wealth by

lending money, it becomes clear that Sir William Compton had become a staggeringly wealthy public servant. In just under twenty years at court he had amassed an impressive

patrimony and had raised his famiiy's fortunes considerably. ' G.W.Bernard, "The Rise of Sir William Compton, Early Tudor Courtier", English Historical Review 96(198 l), 754.

' Ibid., 754. ' Starkey, "Privy Chaniber", 71; David Loades, The Tudor Court (Totowa, N.J.: Bames & Noble, 1987), 47.

" Starkey, "Intimacy and innovation", 77.

* David Starkey, "Court and Government" in Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the Historv of Tudor Government and Administration ed. C. Coleman and David Starkey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1%6), 32-33.

6 Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 35.

' Ibid, 75.

Bernard, 776.

Ibid., 761.

'O Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble and TLlustre Families of Lancastre and Yorke (New York: AMS Press, l965), 5 13.

" Frank Arthur Mumby, The Youth of Henry VITI: A Narrative in Contemporay Letters (London: Constable & Co., 1913), 139- 140.

''L.P. IV, i, ccxx and note; Erickson, Great Hamy, 65; Antonia Fraser, The Wives of Henry VI11 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, I992), 70.

" -L.P. ii, ii, King's Book of Paynients @p. 1463-1473)

'" Starkey, "Court and Govemment", 50.

l5 Starkey, "Intimacy and Innovation", 87.

l6 -L.P. 1,4468.

" Starkey, "Representation through intimacy", 199-200. ''Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1485-1537), Camden Series Vol LXXW, ed. and tram. Denys Huy (London: Royal HistoricaI Society, 1950), 309 ; Starkey, "htimacy and Innovation", 105.

l9Bernard, 774.

'O 'O Erickson, Great Hany, 105.

'' Loades, The Tudor Court, 49; Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 148.

.y " .y E O cap. 62, p. 156.

'3 Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 149.

'' Ibid., 150.

" -L.P. IV, i, 2002 g.22

'6 '6 -L.P. IV, ii, p. 1309; 3.22

27 Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 157.

'' David Mathew, The Courtiers of Henry VI11 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1970), 95.

" Erickson, Great Hary, 2 15.

'O 'O L.P. IV, ii, 4438; Erickson, Great Ha-, 215.

-L.P. IV, ii, 3442 (5).

" Bernard, 76 1.

33 Ibid, 774.

34 R.H. Brodie, "Sir William Compton" in Dictionary of National Biomauhy ed. Sidney Lee (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 190S), 4: 909.

35 Bernard, 76 1.

36 L.P. ïïi, i, 1287.

37 Mathew, 78. -L.P. IV, ii, 4442 no. 7.

39 Erickson, Great Hamy, 21 5.

'O 'O Mathew, 78.

" -L.P. IV, ii, 3395; Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 256.

'' Bernard, 771-772.

43 Ibid., 772. Chapter Three - Sir Nicholas Carew

Nicholas Carew was probably bom around 1490, the eldest son and heir of Sir

Richard Carew of Beddington, Surrey. Like Compton, he was at court from a very young age, "being brought up under His Majesty since ... six years old"'. He seems to have profited from his early exposure to court and King, building a power-base which was firmly grounded in his intirnate knowledge of both.

Carew benefitted from Henry VIII's "participatory" style, holding various Chamber and Privy Chamber ofices during the first years of the new reign. When Henry went to war in France in 15 13, Carew went with him, taking part in the siege of Tournai2. This seems to have been the first and last tirne he worked açainst France, as his later career reveals a definite Francophile bent. In December 15 14, he married Elizabeth Bryan, the sister of another of the King's yoimg friends. Carew's standing with his royal master may be guessed from the grant of £500 given the bride', and by the King's attendance at the weddingJ.

It was at the tournament, however, that Carew made his reputation. He made his jousting début at a "joust of pleasure" that the King gave in April 15 15 to "set forth" his young friends, Carew and his new brother-in-law, Francis Bryan. The two were allowed to keep the fine blue satin coats they wore, in addition to their horses' harness and trappings, "to encourage al1 youthe to seke dedes of arme^"^. From this auspicious beginning, Carew never looked back, taking part in many subsequent toumaments, firmly cementing his Inendship with Henry, who was also a fine exponent of al1 equestrian sports,

The highlight of Carew's jousting career was his appearance as the "Blue Knight" at a tournament in July, 15 17. Clad in blue satin, he hoisted a twelve-foot-long, nine-inch- thick tree as a lance and rode almost the entire length of the tiltyard - a minimum of 100 yards' distance6. Such feats, above and beyond the traditional tournament activities, enhanced the repiitation of Carew and, by extension, of his King. Carew practiced his martial exercises so assiduously that he warranted his own arming tent and his own practice tilt, both at Greenwich7. Twenty years after his first appearance in the lists, he was painted by Ham Holbein in the pose and amour of the tiltyard - a nod, perhaps, to the role that began his rise to fame8.

Although Carew held the Chamber post of Cupbearer, he was an es officio nieniber of the Privy Charnbcr from the earliest days of the reign, carrying out many functions that salaried staff would have done9. It was as the King's friend that he was most welcome in the Privy Chamber, one of the circle of royal intimates known as the "minions". These were the King's boon companions, who danced with him in court masques, rode with him on progresses, and enlivened his private hours with singing, dicing, and "good company"lO. Since the minions actually performed semi-officia1 fimctions for the King, their positions were eventualIy formalized as Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber in 15 18.

They were in perpetual attendance on the King, and as close body servants and intimate friends, they were in a position to wield enormous influence over the King, and, tlirough him, over the Court' '. 3 9

One advantage such influence gave Henry's close fiiends was the opportunity to help rheir fiiends, and Carew's use of his "pull" may have caused his bief exile fiom court in late 15 17. He helped a fellow minion, William Cofin, to obtain the royal consent to woo a rich widow (another possibility is that the King, at Carew's urging, may have commanded the lady to view Coffim's suit with favour). Such a prize naturally had more than one suitor; Cardinal Wolsey wanted her fm one of his own servants. Carew's successful efforts on his friend's behalf, Dr. Starkey thinks, may have been enough provocation for Wolsey to have him sent fiom court, and his place taken by the

Cardinal's own secretary, Richard Pace''. If such was indeed Wolsey's intent, he was doomed to disappointment; by March 15 18, Pace was writing to the Cardinal that "Mr.

Carew and his wife be returned to the King's grace, too soon after mine opinion", and that they came "by c~mmandment"'~.Obviously the King had been missing his friend.

This was not an isolated incident. It was inevitable that the minions' privileged position would stir envy and resentment, and they made matters worse by hveaking the beards of a few of the older, more sober courtiers. They were the younger set, stylish, daring, well-educated, more than a little arrogant; several of them had recently been on a mission to France, where they had been included in the wild roistering of the new King,

Francis 1. Carew had been among Francis' laughing entourage as they rode disguised through Paris, "throwing Egges, stones and other foolish trifles at the people". On their return to England, these young men were al1 Frenche, in eatyng, drynkyng and apparell ... in Frenche vices and bragges, so that al1 the estates of Englande were by them laughed at ... nothing by them was praised, but if it were after the Frenche turne".

The council determined that they were "so familier and homely with [the King]"" as to

diminish the royal dignity. In Tudor times, the sovereign's image bolstered his power to

a great extent; clearly, this situation could not continue. in May 1519, with the King's consent, the council called several of the minions, including Carew, on the carpet, and

dismissed them to the country or to duties welI away from the court. Carew was sent to

Calais, where he took up the captaincy of Ruysbanke tower, "whiche was sore to hym di~pleasant,"'~

Whatever the underlying reasons behind this incident, the minions' belittling of the

English court by cornparison to a foreign power was unacceptable in men so close to the

King; the Crown was being made to look very bad by associationI7. That the foreign power in question was France probably confirmed the minions' bad image in the minds

of their fellow Englishmen, to whom Frenchness equalled irnrn~rality'~.The Venetian

ambassador raised the possibility of their having been subomed by France"; if true, this

would have been an explosive situation, given the minions' closeness to, and influence

with, the King.

Carew reappears in the court records in October 15 191°, and travelled to France with

the King's retinue for the Field of Cloth of Gold. Carew took a prominent role in the jousts held at Ardres and at Guisnes, a "defender" of the field with the two Kings'l. He

.. .- - W,X, âIsu iïi àiiciiJaii~t:ai i-hly'h SULS~U~II~riieeiing wiih Charies V in juiy of that same 4 1 year.

As was usual for Tudor courtiers, Carew held a nurnber of extra-curial posts, serving as Justice of the Peace for his home county of Surrey f?om 1518 and sheriff of Surrey and

Sussex fiom 15 18- 19, and travelling to France with Sir Richard Jerningham in January of

152 1. In May of that same year, he sat on the Surrey grand jury for its indictment of the

Duke of Buckingham, who was later executed for treason. Although the actual date is uncertain, he must have been knighted by mid-1522, as he was appointed Master of the

Horse in July of that yeai'. Along with this prestigious post, he was granted some of the lands Iately held by Buckingham, including the manor of Bletchingley in Surrey".

As Master of the Horse, Carew was responsible for the feeding, training and maintenance of the royal horses; for running the royal stables and breeding programs; and for organizing the equine transportation for the court's many "removings". The actual mingof the stables required a staff of sixty", which reported to him. The Master of the Horse accompanied the King when he rode out for any purpose, leading his 'horse of estate' on ceremonial occasions; he was, in effect, the outdoor equivalent of the Groom of the StoolLS.A fine horseman, Carew was tailor-made for the post, and held it until his death.

The next few years took Carew farther afield. in October 1523, he and other Privy

Chamber officers were sent North to the Earl of Surrey, with a view to improving the morale of the troops on the Scottish ~ordei~.November 1527 found him in France among a group of English notables, presenting the French King with the Order of the

Garter. The "gim sctcdière" was well received in France: he spoke the language well, was on fiiendly terms with Francis 1, and had a reputation for pro-French sympathies.

Several years later, when another embassy was being mooted, the French asked for him by name".

The year 1527 brought the question of the English succession into sharp focus. The

King, despairing of a male heir by his aging Spanish Queen, Katherine of Aragon, was

contemplating marriage with her maid of honour, Anne Boleyn. Although public

sympathy was solidly on Katherine's side, those close to the King realised that

maintaining their hard-won positions meant making an uncomfortable choice. If they

could not actively support the rising star, they would be forced to hide their true feelings

and swim with the current, focusing on their loyalty to the King (or to their own self-

interest). Carew had. by this the, a formidable position at court to protect, holding man?

offices and lands; in the 1527 subsidy, his yearly income was assessed at £400'" He

chose to dissemble, hiding (for the time being) both his dislike of Anne and his stubborn

Ioyalty to Katherine and her daughter, Mary2g.

In the fall of 1529, Carew was Henry's emissary to the Emperor Charles V at his

court in Bologna, Italy. Charles was more than a major player on the European stage; he

was the nephew of Henry's soon-to-be-discarded Queen, Carew seems to have conveyed

to the Emperor his loyalty to Katherine and his regret at his forced involvernent in the

divorce3'. Katherine herself had written to her powerful nephew of Carew's

trustworthiness3'. On his return in February 1530 fiorn the Imperia1 court, he established

communications with both Katherine and with Charles7ambassador in England, Eustace

Chapuys", and gradually became one of the leading lights of the "Aragonese" factiod3. 43

This group was made up largely of political and religious conservatives.

Outwardly, Carew remained a dutiful royal servant and ftiend, welcoming his King to a Beddington hunting party in February 153 1" and acting as a chaperon for Anne

Boleyn on another hunting excursion in June of that year". His New Year's gift to the

King was a "gilt cup of assay" which weighed over 7 o~nces'~;either his wealth allowed the extravagance or his future prospects demanded the sacrifice. His own gift from the

King was of similar value.

His views, however, were clearly unchanged. In 1533, he was sent to France to arrange an autumn meeting between his King and Francis, aimed at soliciting French support for Henry's marriage to Anne. Carew was perfectly aware of the trend of events, and told Chapuys that he was furthering Anne's cause much against his wi113'.

Events conspired against Katherine's partisans, as AM^ Boleyn's pregnancy made rnarriage an urgent necessity. At her coronation on I June 1533, Carew led the

"answerers" in the celebratory toiirnamentss8. In diat same year, the French King wrote to Henry, requesting that Carew be considered for the Garter. This request was repeated in 1535, but Henry explained that the restricted numbers in the Order made Carew's election, for the moment, irnp~ssible~~.

By 1534, the bloom was off the rose of the King's new rnarriage. Anne's child had been a daughter, and her temper had not been improved either by this failure or by the

King's wandering eye. Henry's angry reactions to her cornplaints were duly passed on by

Carew to ChapuysJO. By July of 1535, relations were so strained between Henry and his second Queen that his Fool Ijester] dared to refer to Anne as "une ribalde" (a whore) and 44 her daughter Elizabeth as a bastard. Whatever his private feelings towards Anne or her child, Henry could not allow public defamation of either, especially since the succession was at this time fixed on Elizabeth. Carew sheltered the FooI fiom Henry's murderous rage, hiding him during his banishment from court4.

January 1536 brought the end of Katherine of Aragon's sad Iife and the rniscarriage of a son by Anne Boleyn, whicli the Queen blarned on her distress at Henry's dalliance with her maid of honour, Jane SeymourJ'. Carew, as a leader of the Aragonese faction and a friend of Jane's brother Edward, is thought to have given her strategic advice in what was fast becoming a campaign to see her as Queen, with a view to restoring Henry's elder daugiiter Mary to the succession"3. According to Chapuys, Carew was "daily conspiring" against Anne, and it would not be his fault if she were not soon

"disrno~nted""~.

On St. George's Day, 23 April 1536, Carew was elected a Knight of the Garter.

Aside fiorn the featlier in his cap which this honour represented, it was seen as an indication of the way the wind of royaI favour was blowing, as his closest cornpetition had been George Boleyn, the Queen's brotherJ5.

The events of May 1536 are well known to historians. Anne Boleyn and five men of the court (incIuding her own brother George) were committed to the Tower on charges of treasonable adultery. During the three fevered weeks Ieading to their executions, the

King sent Jane Seymour away îrom court '70 cover the affection he has for [her]", to

Carew's own house. She was later brought "within a mile of [Henry's] lodging", escorted by Carew, and was reported to be "splendidly served" and "richly dres~ed"'~. 45

Within two weeks of Anne's execution, Jane became Henry's third Queen, and was now in a position to help the Aragonese faction bring Mary back to her father's favour, if not to the successionJ7.

Carew was also working toward that goal. As early as June 1536, he had been heard to Say that Mary would be a "meet person to be heir-apparent", in default of issue by the new QueenJ8. He had also been in communication with Mary, advising her to submit to her father's will, otherwise "she is ~ndone"~'.This partisanship of Mary, who was still out of favour with the King, may have been very costly to Carew in the long run. Dr.

Starkey believes that Carew's involvement in Anne's fa11 (mainly as a proponent of Jane) had caused him to reveal his allegiance to another duty (ie. Mary), in addition to that he owed to the King. in effect, Carew had been forced to place Mary above the King, which was unforgiveable to Henryso. If true, the events of 1536 rnay have signalled the beginning of the end for the Master of the Horse.

At the the, however, he was stil1 Henry's trusted servant, mustering 200 men for the suppression of the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536". This popular uprising was based in the northem counties, still attached to the old ways of worship; resentment of those held responsible for the break with Rome fmally spilled over into violent reaction. Given

Carew's alignrnent with a conservative faction, he may have been privately sympathetic with the rebels, even as he called his men to arrns against them. He did not allow his views to prevent hirn from accepting large grants of monastic land in 1537, made available by the Dissolution of the Monasteries, any more than his loyalty to the late

Queen Katherine stopped his acquisition of some of her properî$'. 4 6

On 12 October, 1537, the King's dearest wish was fulfilled with the birth of Prince

Edward to his third queen. A lavish christening ceremony welcomed this long-awaited son on 15 October, with Carew in attendance at the font in apron and towels3. When lane

Seymour died fiom puerperal sepsis ("childbed fever") on 24 October, Carew's wife received some of her jewelry, and was in attendance at her elaborate hneral on 12

Novembe?.

The defeat of the northem rebels in 1536-37 had not silenced the complaints of those who rejected the King's Supremacy over the Church of England. In addition to religious principles, two noblemen at least may have had designs on the crown. The Marquess of

Exeter and Lord Montague were descendants of the royal Plantageriet line and showed signs of the religious consewatism which had spawned the Pilgrimage of Grace. By mid-

1538, both were under surveillance, watched carefùlly for signs of organization and subversion. in August, Montague's younger brother Sir Geoffiey Pole was arrested; promised a pzrdon in retum for his testimony, he told al1 he knew, spilling forth a motiey assortment of incautious remarks, family activities, and opinions. Unfortunately for

Carew, his name was mentioned by both Pole and a Jasper HorseySs as having been present at certain meetings at Exeter's estate.

When Exeter and Montague were arrested in November, Carew was among those appointed to a special commission to receive the indictments against Exeter in Surrey.

Rashly, Carew rnarvelled at the "secretly handled" prosecution, terming it "arbitrary and

~njust"'~.At about the same time, for the first time in twenty years, Carew failed to be chosen as Sheriff for Surrey and Sussex. This omission may have been a straw in the 4 7 wind, just as his own selection for the Garter had been a waming of the end of the Boleyn faction in 1536".

Exeter and Montague were tried in earIy December, charged with having approved of the Catholic intrigues of Montague's brother, Cardinal Pole, and with hoping for a

"change of this w~rld"~~.Presumably, this last referred to the "jolly tirr ring"^^ which

Montague had predicted wouId follow the King's death. Under the Treasons Act of 1533, even imagining that occurrence was treasonous:

... yf any person ... do malicyously wyshe will or desyre by wordes or writing or .., ymagen ... any bodely harme ... to the Kynges rnoste royal1 persone ... [he] shalbe adjudged trayt~ur.~'

Sir Geoffrey's revelations had doomed both of the accused to death. They were duly condemned and executed on 9 December 1538. Amongst their effects were found letters suggesting that Carew "was one of the chief of that factionv6'.

Carew's arrest followed soon after, on 3 1 December. Almost immediately, royal

servants began compiling an inventory of his possessions, and his offices had been

reassigned even before his arrest, according to Chapuys6'. Committed to the Tower, he

was questioned about his correspondence with Exeter, Montague, Katherine of Aragon,

and Mary. Nearly al1 of his letters to and fiom Exeter had been bumt by mutual

agreement, which in itself was suspicious. The only surviving letter, to Lady Exeter,

described a conversation in the King's chamber'', which may have been the catalyst for

his arrest. A letter to Mary from Carew was described by an old servant, who

remembered his having advised her "for the love of God .., to follow the King's de~ire"~'. 4 8

In hopes of ri pardon, Carew recounted such incriminating tidbits as a description of

Exeter's disappointment at the birth of Prince Edward6'.

Sir Nicholas Carew was brought to trial on 14 February 1539. His offences were

linked by the Crown to Exeter's, and "knowing the said Marquis to be a traitor, did ...

falsely abet the said Marquis". He was also accused of sending and receiving "traitorous

letters", which "they aftenvards, to conceal their treason, traitorously b~rnt"~~.Finally,

his injudicious remarks concerning Exeter's indictment were brought against him, as

being "contrary to his allegiance". He was found guilty ("judgement as usual in cases of

high treason"), and sentenced to death6'. At his execution on 8 March, he thanked God

for the opportunity to read the Bible in English, which a jailor had brought to him, and

exhorted "al1 that can read to read those Holy Scriptures". (One wonders whether this was

a repudiation of Iiis old consemative prejudice against the Scriptures' new availability in

English.) As was usual at Tudor executions, he expressed loyalty to the King, saying that

he died "as firm a subject to my liege sovereign Lord as any that liveth or shall live after

me."68

Parliament passed a Bill of Attainder for a long list of names, including Carew's,

later in 1539~~.Once attainted, a person's blood (including that of his descendants) was

considered to be contaminated by the touch of treason; his family could not inherit his

property. His son Francis was restored in blood in 1548, not long after Henry's death7'.

It is possible that the new Lord Protector, Edward Seymour, had not forgotten his old

îiiend, and did his best to help that friend's son. In 1554, Queen Mary went still further,

returning al1 of Sir Nicholas' property to Francis, with the exception of Bletchingley. 4 9

This, too, may have been a gesture of gratitude to the memory of an old £riend.

The true cause of Carew's fa11 is not clear. Although he was executed for treasonable conspiracy, the evidence was largely circurnstantial: the burning of the letters, the long- standing loyalty to Mary, the political songs in Exeter's garden7'. He may have been caught in a Pole-Courtenay dragnet, on the basis of old Mers and expressions of

~~rn~athy~~,or his "treason" may have been on the same level as Exeter's, a desire to see a change7j. Such a wish, imprudently expressed, made him, like the others, guilty of treason as the law then understood it. An old family tradition holds that Carew lost the royal favour over a sharp exchange with the King during a game of bowls, "and was bruised to death thereby"". AAer spending nearly forty years in the royal service, however, Carew was unlikely to have slipped in such a way; perhaps this is the true explanation for his brief exile from court in 15 17-1 8''. Chapuys, reporting to his niaster,

implied that the arrests and executions were an aîîack on Mary, since the men in question

were her devoted servants: "it would seem they wish to leave her as few such as

p~ssible."~~. Ronald Michell, The Carews of BeddinHon (London: London Borough of Sutton Libraries and Arts Services, 1981),27.

S.T. Bindoff, '"Sir Nicholas Carew" in The House of Çornmons. 1509-1558 ed. S.T. Bindaff (London: Secker & Warburg, 198S), 1: 575.

Bindoff, 575.

-L.P. II, ii, Book of Recognizances: Revels, 19 April 15 15; Hall, 58 1.

Erickson, Great Hamy, 126.

7 -L.P. il, ii, King's Book of Payments, 15 17; Erickson, Great Haq, 126.

"tarkey, "Intirnacy and Innovation", 79.

'O Neville Williams, Henry VITI and his Court (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971), 71.

'I David Starkey, The Reign of Henry Vm: Personalities and Politics (London: George Philip, 1985), 72.

" Ibid., 73-76.

" -L.P. II, ii, 4034.

''Hall, 597.

l5 lbid, 598.

l6 ibid., 598.

l7 Greg Walker, Plavs of persuasion: Drama and politics at the court of Henry VITI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I991), 66-68. ''Greg Walker, "The 'Expulsion of the Minions' of 15 19 Reconsidered" Th Historical journal 32: l(l989), 14. This article gives a full discussion of the 15 IQ expulsion, with some convincing insights on Cardinal Wolsey's involvement. Dr. Starkey takes another view in bis unpublished 1973 Ph.D. thesis "The King's Privy Chamber, 1485-1 547".

l9 Sebastian Giustinian, Four Years at the Court of Heny VTII ed. and tram Rawdon Brown (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1854), il: 271.

" -L.P. II, ii, 4437; Thomas Wall, The Vovage of Sir Nicholas Carewe to the Emperor Charles V in the Year 1529 ed. R.J. Knecht (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 15.

" -L.P. III, ii, 2395-2397.

'' Starkey, "Intirnacy and innovation", 1 10.

l6 Starkey, "Representation Through intimacy", 200.

Wall, 18.

l9 Ibid, 19, 35.

30 Eric Ives, Anne Boleyn (Oxford: Basil BlackweI1, l986), 170.

" Bindoff, 576.

" -L.P. V, 308; Ives, Anne Boleyn, 170.

'3 Ives, Anne Bolevn, 348.

'' James Gairdner, "Sir Nicholas Carew" in Dictionary ofNational Biogaphy ed. Sidney Lee (London: Secker & Warburg, 1908), 3: 966.

" Marie Louise Bruce, Anne Bolevn (London: Pan Books, 1972), 179. " Gairdner, 966; Michell, 34.

" L.P. VI, 584; Ives, Anne Boleyn, 227

39 Wall, 19.

'O 'O -L.P. VU, 1554; Ives, Anne Bolevn, 242; Wall, 19.

" Bindoff, 576; Bruce, 269-70.

'" Ives, Anne Bolevn, 345; Carolly Erickson, Mistress Anne: The Exceptional Life of Anne Bolevn (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 245.

'' Ives, Anne Bolevn, 348; Antonia Fraser, The Wives of Heny VTn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 242.

" -L.P. X, 752; Wall, 19.

" Paul Friedmann, Anne Bolevn: A Chapter of En~lishHistoy. 1527-1536 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1884), II: 246.

J6 -L.P. X, 908.

." Carolly Erickson, Bloodv May (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), 159.

-L.P. X, 1134; Bindoff, 577. This evidence of Carew's partiality to Mary emerged in the testimony of Sir Anthony Browne, detailing an overheard conversation.

50 Starkey, Reim, 1 18- 1 19.

5' -L.P. XI, 580.

" -L.P. XII, ii, 9 1 1

'' L.p XII, ii, 973, 1060.

*'L.P. Xm,ii, S27(2). '"airdner, 967; Madeleine Hope Dodds and Ruth Dodds, The PiIrnimage of Grace 1536-1 537 and the Exeter Conspiracv, 1538 (London: Frank Cass & Co., 197 1), U: 3 19- 321.

57 -L.P. Xm, ii, 967(26); Bindoff, 577.

L.P. XIii, ii, 827(1); Gairdner, 967.

sq L.P. XIII, ii, 804(5); N. Williams, 215.

26 Henry VI11 c. 13, The Statutes of the Realm (London: Dawsons of Pal1 Mall, 1963), III: 508-509.

'' L.P. XIV, i, 37. The conversation in the King's chamber is probably the same one reported by Sir Anthony Browne in his testimony of 1536 (see note 45).

-L.P. XN, i, 190(13).

b5 Wall, 20.

67 L P XN, i, 290.

Michell, 39.

69 3 1 Henry VIII c. 15, Statutes of the Realm, 1ZI: 7 17.

2&3 Edward VI, n.42, Statutes of the Realm, IV, i: ix.

'' Williams, 216.

" Murie! St. Clare Byrne, The Lisle Letters (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 198 l), VI, 223.

73 Gairdner, 967.

74 .ri.. . . . n il L iiuilias r UM, Tlle Woriilies of Enniand ed. joh Freeman (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1952), 545. '' Gairdner, 967.

" -L.P. XIV, i, 37; Wall, 21. Chapter Four - Henry Norris

Very little is known of the early life of Henry Norris; even the approximate date of his birth is a mystery. The second surviving son of Sir Edward Noms of Kent, he too came to court in his youth, appearing in the royal circle after 15 15'. in age, social background and courtly skills he was similar to Carew and others of the King's inner circle', and quickly became one of the "minions", sharing the King's private hours and amusements, dancing in masques and jousting in toumaments3. His informal court position was made official in September 15 18, when with the other niinions he was given the title of Gentlenian of the Privy Chamber'.

Less flamboyant, perhaps, than his fellow minions, Norris became a close friend of the King, who valued (and insisted upon) discretion among his intimates'. In typical fashion, Henry showered his Eiend with lucrative posts, including Engraver of the King's dies (for gold and silver ~oinage)~;he was also granted several manors, with their attendant privileges and incomes. He survived the 15 19 upheaval of the "expulsion of the minions", probably one of the few close fnends lefi to the King in the wake of that purge.

In 1520, he accompanied the court to France for the Field of CIoth of Gold surnmit, jousting "richlie apparelled" in blue velvet and white satin7. Over the next few years, more grants and properties came his way, until by 1527 his annual income in lands and fees was assessed at £104'.

This advancement in Noms' fortunes was greatly assisted by the 1526 reforms 5 6 known as the Elthain Ordinances. incidental in these measures for the increased efficiency of the court was a changing of the guard at the top of the Privy Charnber, with

Noms' advancement to ''the roome [office] of Sir William Compton ... as groome of the

King's st~ole"~.in effect, Noms had succeeded to the foremost position among the

King's body servants, first among the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber, who "for their good behaviour and quallityes hath [been] elected for that purpose"lO. As Groom of the

Stool, Norris would attend the King "in Iiis bed-chamber, and other privy places", where

"none other of the said gentlemen" rnight "presume to enter or follow his Grace"".

Norris' new post entailed more than foliowing the King to the close-stool every day and sweeping a sword under the royal bed every night. Under his predecessor, Sir

William Compton, the office of Groom of the Stool liad gradually assurned more and more administrative functions. Norris continued as "keeper of [the King's] everyday moneys"" and placed bills (petitions for preferrnent) before the King when his rnood seemed arnenable to perfoi-ming that most hated of tasks, writing his signature. As the man who was with the King for the better part of the day, Norris' support and assistance was eagerly sought, suitors promising favours and often gifts in retum for his help.

His advocacy of the affairs of Lord Lisle is a well-docurnented exarnple. While Lisle held office across the Channel in Calais, his London man of business, John Husee, needed an inside contact at court. He forind it in Henry Noms, whose fî-iendship for Lisle he never doubted: "1 fid no man good to me in my Iord's suits indeed, but Mr. Norris, who 1 find al1 times to be one manner man"'3 - that is, a steadfast, reliabie fi-iend. Norris' assistance varied frorn whispering requests into the royal ear to preventing the complaints 5 7 of Lisle's enemies fiom reaching that sarne earI4,

As the 1520s drew to a close, Noms continued to prospr, his influence at court increasing in tune with his income. Surviving the sweat outbreak of 1528, he fell heir to many of the offices held by Sir William Compton, and was handling large amounts of money for the King's useI5. By 1531, he had been appointed Chamberlain of North

Wales, a high-ranking position of some importance16. As a prominent member of the

Privy Chamber, he had been witness to the transfer of the Great Seal of England from the fallen Cardinal Wolsey to Sir Thomas ore". in addition, he was appointed a Justice of the Peace for Kent in 1EUi8. Many of his extra-curial posts were undoubtedly performed by paid deputies, and brought him rich fees, but it was the power and influence that they conferred which he valued most. Stewardships in particular conferred the right to muster men in tirne of war. Norris himself valued the stipend "not ... at al1 ... but the sovereignty and leading of the men"'9. influence was not measured simply in monetary ternis.

From the few contemporary references which have corne dom to us, "gentle Mr.

Norris"'" seeins to have been popular at court, well-regarded by his colleagues. Two bief vignettes from 1529 give a glimpse of his character. These stories centered on the falling fortunes of the great statesman, Cardinal Wolsey, and were written by the

Cardinal's servant and hiend, George Cavendish. Cavendish records how, when the

Cardinal arrived at Grafton to see the King, he found to his mortification that no lodging had been set aside for him. Norris came unto hi.... and rnost humbly offered hirn his chamber for the time, until another might somewhere be provided for him. 'For, sir, 1 assure you,' quod he, 'here is very little room in this house, scantly sufficient for the King; therefore 1 beseech your grace to accept mine for the season.'"

Wolsey's dismissal followed not long after, and as he was leaving London in disgrace, Norris caught up with hirn, bearing a message of good cheer and a token fiom the King, telling him that he was still high in the royal favour, saying, 'And for my part 1 trust to see you in better estate than ever ye were.' Wolsey, overcome with emotion at these "good and comfortable words of the King", flung himself fkom his muIe and knelt in the mud. Norris "alighted also and kneeled by him, ernbracing hirn in liis arms, and asked him how he did, calling upon him to credit [believe] his message."" Before Norris leî? the Cardinal, Wolsey told him:

'Gentle Norris, if 1 were lord of a realm the one half thereof were insufficient a reward to give you for your pains and good comfortable news ... I desire you to take this srna11 reward of my bands' ... a cross of gold ... wherein was a piece of the holy cross ... '1 beseech you take it in gree [in good will] and Wear it about your neck for my sake ... and have me in remembrance unto the King's majesty as opportunity shall serve you ...'"

CIearly, Wolsey, even through his joyful tears, was aware of the advantages of having

Norris' sympatliy, especially given his closeness to the King. We do not know whether

Noms used his opportunities on the Cardinal's behaif.

In his role as the King's close body servant and friend, Norris may have been called upon to witness the King's second maniage ceremony, kept so secret that to this day few of its particulars are known. According to a Catholic historian writing twenty years after 59 the fact, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn were married at dawn in late January, 1533, at

Whitehall, with Noms and perhaps one or two others as witnesses'f nose present were sworn to secrecy for the time being until the time was ripe for open defiance of the Pope of Rome, of which this new mamage was the most obvious facet. The official records of the day make no mention of the ceremony, its witnesses, or its officiant.

Secrecy or no, rumuurs flew about the possibility of the new marriage, even before its forma1 announcement. During 1533, a Mrs. Amydas, who considered herself a prophetess, gave forth a string of pronouncements, many of which touched on the new order of things in England. Among her "reliearsals" was an accusation "that Master

Nores was bawd [procurer] between the King and [Anne Boleyn]"", perhaps recalling the story of Sir William Compton's questionable actions on the King's behalf many years before. (There is no evidence that Norris actually performed such fùnctions.)

Over the course of the next two years, Norris continued to arnass posts and lands, and acted as a Crown representative at such events as the execution of the Charterhouse monks in 1 535'6. At the same time, Henry VIII was becoming disenchanted with his new

Queen, who had faiIed to produce the son he so desired. By early 1536, she had

"miscarried of her saviour"", and history was beginning to repeat itself: the King was exploring the possibility of a new marriage with her maid of honour, Jane Seymour. As spring advanced, fewer and fewer courtiers fiequented her chambers, preferring to sun themselves in the refl ected rays of royal favour that now warmed Jane and her farnily.

One who did not desert the Queen was Henry Norris, who seems to have been part of a charade of "courtly love" that surrounded her. 60

"Courtly love" was a remnant of the Age of Chivalry, an antiquated convention that centred on a courtier's devoted service to an unattainable lady, who might extend

"kindnessJ' to him, but little more. It has been suggested that its purpose was to stabilize the volatile mixture of men and women at court, who were often away from their

ouse ses'^. in this case, fiattery, favours and the language of love were showered on the focus of this stylized desire, the Queen. The languishing iooks and the flowery speeches were, however, open ta dangerous misconstruction.

An exampIe occurred in April, 1536. Norris, a widower with two children, had been contemplating marriage with Anne's cousin Margaret Shelton, but had been reluctant to commit himself; he rnay have been dubious about making so close a link with a family in dec~ine'~.When the Queen twitted him about the delay, he replied evasively that he would "tany a time". Flinging restraint aside, she accused him of looking for "dead men's shoes ... that if aught came to the King but good, you would look to have me."

Norris, horrified by such a high-risk comment, protested that "if he should have such thought, he would his head were off', and they "fell out". The quarrel ended with Anne begging Norris to vouch for her virtue if he should hear it challenged publicly. He gave her his promise, and on 30 April told her almoner that he "would swear that the Queen was a good ~ornan"~~.Unfortunately, the court had many eyes and ears, and the confrontation was quickly cornmon knowledge". Anne had allowed "pastime in the

Queen's chamber" to go too fa+'.

What neither the Queen nor her circle of courtly admirers knew was that Henry ViII was actively seekig an end to his second marriage, charging his Secretary, Thomas 6 1

Cromwell, with effecting that end. The difficulty for the rninister was the Boleyn faction: if Anne were swept away in disgrace, her support system, lefi intact, could still mount some sort of counter-attack which might threaten Cromwell's own position. Cromwell had already clashed with Noms, probably over the Secretary's tardy filfilment of gants that the Groom had arranged, and had to keep in mind Norris' "pull" with the King. in addition, the military clout that Norris' manors gave him had to be consideredJ3. Norris was by no means the only influential courtier in Anne's party; there were several others, al1 posing the same problem for Cromwell if he made any rash moves. The ensuing events reveal Cromwell's solution: Anne must be accused of treason, and the most powefil members of her faction with he?'.

Cromwell acted swiftly. Possibly through torture, a confession of adultery with the

Qiieen was obtained from her musician, Mark Smeaton. Other names were mentioned, including that of Norris, who, suspecting nothing, jousted in the May Day tournament, held on 1 May 1536 at Greenwich. After the tournament, the King lefl for London; along the way he drew Norris aside, told him of the accusations against him, and promised him a pardon if he would confess to adultery with the Queen. Norris denied the charges and offered to settle the issue by single combat, an old-fashioned, chivalric means of deciding legal questions3'. Having spumed the King's lifeIine, Norris was arrested at dawn of the following day and committed to the Tower of London.

Anne was also arrested on 2 May and brought by barge to the Tower. In the end, she was charged with adultery with five men, including Norris and her own brother, and with having conspired the King's death, which constituted treason under the 1534 Treasons 62

Norris and the other accused (with the exception of the hapless musician) denied al1 charges and pleaded not guilty at their trial on 12 May. A11 were found guilty, and with that verdict, the Queen's fate was sealed, as "adulterers necessarily come in pairs"".

Although sentenced to the EuIl horrors of hanging, drawing, and quartering, the four commoners met an easier end, falling to the axe or, in Smeaton's case, the noose.

Although his four cornpanions addressed the witnesses around the scaffold, Nûrtis said almost nothing when his turn came to die38. He was buried with his fellow victim, Sir

Francis Weston, in one grave in the Tower churchyard. Contrary to common practice in cases of treason, their heads were not exhibited on Tower Bridge, but were buried with their bodies.

Al! the accused were almost certainly innocent of the charges brought against them.

Even the Spanish Ambassador, who hated the Queen, wrote to his master that Noms and the others were "condernned without presumption ... without valid proof or confe~sion"'~.

Although the indictments specified places and dates for the alleged aduIterous offenses, the majority could not have occurred as stated, since the principak were in other places at those times'"'. The most setious charge, that of conspiring the King's death, was clearly based on the story of the confrontation betweeri the Queen and Norris, which she herself related in the Tower and which was reported to Cromweli. The "whiff of treason"" which this story carried was too opportune for the minister to miss, and he made good use of it, alleging that the Queen had promised to marry Noms, thus presupposing (by implication, plotting) Henry's death. in fact, that occurrence would have been the min of

Anne, as she must have been aware4'. Anne probably told her side of the story to 63 reinforce her claims of fidelity; if so, it is ironic that it provided Cromwell with the most useful "evidence" against herJ3.

Was Norris actually a member of the Boleyn faction? Although some authors Say no, it seems likely that he was, if not a political partner, at least a fiend of Anne's. A telling argument for his friendship is his presence in her rooms in April, 1536, when more advantage might be accnied in the Seymour camp. It would indeed be ironic if this factional purge caught a man whose links to Anne and the others were personal, not political.

The opportunity Norris had to speak to the King in his own defense was highly unusual; the standard procedure was to prevent those accused of treason From having any contact with Henry"'. A possible explmation was that the King was trying to avoid sacrificing a close friend on the altar of a new marriage4'. No~is,offered a choice between loyalty to the King and to the Queen (and to the truth as he knew it), did not choose the King, and Henry VlTI could not tolerate being the loser in a battle of divided loyalties, as Sir Nicholas Carew would discover nearly three years 1aterJ6.

Nomis, as mentioned, held many lucrative ofices, and no sooner was the news abroad of his arrest than the petitions for his ofices beganJ7. Four days before his trial, a cynical suitor was writing of a stewardship "like shortly to be vacant in consequence of

ML Noues' trouble (many men thinking that there is no way but one with him)"". There were good pickings for those fortunate enough (or quick enough) to profit £rom his

tragedy; at his death, Norris' yearly income exceeded £1 300J9.

Noms was found guilty of treason iiirough the courts, and does not seem to have been attainted by ~arliament"; a private member's bill of 1539 brought about his

"restit~cion"~'.His son was thus freed fiom the taint of treason, although no property was restored to him at that time5'. That same year, he was granted "such lands of inheritance as should have fallen to his father ..."". The younger Noms was ennobled by

Anne's daughter, Elizabeth 1, as a gesture of gratitude to his father, who had died in the

"justification of her rnother's inno~ence"~".At least one modem author sees Norris' refusal to save himself at Anne's expense as a strong argument for his (and her) innocenceSS.

Although he died the ignoble death of a traitor, Noms was not forgotten. The poet

Sir Thomas Wyatt, v~hohad himself narrowly escaped the net in 1536. lamented:

Ah! Norris, Norris, my tears begin to run To think what hap did thee so lead or guide Whereby thou hast both thee and thine undone That is bewailed in court of every side ...56

Perhaps the best epitaph conies fiom the pen of John Husee, who wote to his master,

Lord Lisle: "1 pray God have mercy on Mr. Norris' soul, for my lord may say he has Iost a friend"57. ' -L.P. II, i, 2735.

' Starkey, Reip, 70.

L.P. II, i, Revels, p. 1510; Hall, 595.

' -L.P. II, i, 4409; Starkey, "Pnvy Chamber", 98.

' E.O., cap. 63, p. 156; Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 89.

' Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles of England. Scotland. and Ireland (New York: AMS Press, 1965), 652.

-L.P. IV, ii, 2972.

E.O., cap. 62, p. 156.

'O E,O., cap. 55, p. 154.

'' a,cap. 62, p. 156

''Starkey, "Court and Government", 40.

l3 Byme, IV: 14-15.

" -L.P. IV, iii, p. 2710 (no. 24); L.P. V, Treasurer of the Chamber's Accounts, pp. 307-3 12.

l6 -L.P. V, 506

" -L.P. IV, iii, 6025.

-L.P. V, 1693 (Kent).

l9 L.P. X, 986; Starkey, "Intimacy and Innovation", 87.

'O 'O -L.P.V, 1509. ''George Cavendish, "The Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey" in Two Earlv Tudor Lives ed. Richard S. Sylvester and Davis P. Harding (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 96.

'' Ibid., 105- 106,

" Ibid., 105-106.

Marie Louise Bruce, Anne Boleyn (London: Pan Books, 1972), 212.

l5 -L.P. VI, 923 (8).

26 W.A.J. Archbold, "Henry Norris" in Dictioriary of National Biomaphy (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1908), 14: 567.

" -L.P. X, 282.

" Ives, Anne Bolevn, 86-87.

29 Ibid., 365.

L.P. X, 793; H. Ellis, Ori~inalLetters Illustrative of Enalish Histoy, 1 (lq series), letter CXVIII, p. 55; Paul Friedmann, Anne Boleyn: A Cha~terof En~lishHistory. 1527- -1536 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1884), II: 249-250.

" Ellis, 1: letter CXXI, p. 61; Ives, Anne BoIevn, 365.

3' Ives, Anne Boleyn, 174.

Starkey, "Intirnacy and Innovation", 1 10- 1 1 1.

'' Ibid., 11 1; Ives, Anne Boleyn, 357.

'' Norah Lofts, Anne Boleyn (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1979), 145.

36 26 Henry VI11 c.13, Statutes of the Realm, III: 508-509; Byrne, III: 363.

l7 Ives, Anne Boleyn, 397.

Thomas Amyot (ed.), "A Memorial fiorn George Constantyne to Thomas Lord Croiïiwcll" iii Riciiaeoiogia: or. iviisceiianeous Tracts Keiatin~to Antiauity (London: Society of Antiquaries, l83O), XXIII: 65. 39 -L.P. X, 908.

40 Ives, Anne Boleyn, 390.

" Antonia Fraser, The Wives of Hen~VIII (New York: Alfied A. Knopf, 19921,250.

'' Friedmann, II: 264.

." Byme, III: 398.

'' Ives, Anne Bolevn, 360.

Lofts, 145.

46 Starkey, Reig, 1 18- 1 19.

JB -L.P. X, 891 (2).

J9 -L.P. X, 878 (ii).

'O Stanford E. Lehmberg, "Parliamentary Attainder in the Reign of Henry VIII" Historical Journal XVUI 4(1975), 699 n. 78.

3 1 Henry VITI c. 22, Statutes of the Realm, III: 717.

52 Lehmberg, 699.

53 Byrne, V: 525.

'' Eric Ives, "Faction at the Court of Henry Va: The Fa11 of Anne Boleyn" History 57: 190(June 1972), 653.

56 Ives, Anne Bolevn, 417.

57 Byrne, 1: 43. Chapter Five - Sir Francis Bryan

Francis Bryan was "bom into the court"', probably by 1492'. His father, Sir Thomas

Bryan, was vice-chamberlain to a Queen, and his mother, Lady Margaret, was governess, in turn, to two future Queens. Building on early opportunities, the younger Bryan became a courtier among courtiers, a true Renaissance man, managing to keep the favour of his capricious King as a lifelong fiiend and boon companion.

Unlike Our other three featured courtiers, Bryan's character fairly Ieaps from the pages of history. From his swiving letters and comments made by ûiends and enemies alike emerge a three-dimensional man of wicked wit, charm, some erudition, and ri hard- headed cynicism that (even allowing for sixteenth-century idiom) seems strangely familiar to modern eyes. A "clever, versatile, and eagerly dissolute manw3,Bryan presented a larger-than-life image which, at tirnes, he appeared to foster. He prided himself on daring to "boldly speak his mind to the King"'. During the course of a Iong career at court he was poet, soldier, intriguer, diplomat, and rake, a man of overwhelming energy which kept him perpetually in motion5.

His early career parallels that of his brother-in-law, Nicholas Carew. After a stint as the commander of the Margaret Bonaventttre against France in 15 136, Bryan retumed to court to share in Carew's tiltyard debut in April 15 15'. He, too, was soon welcome in the

King's private apartments even though he held no officia1 position there, being numbered among Henry's "minions" who shared the royal amusements and leisure hows. Men, in 69

15 18, the minions were given salaried status as Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber, Bryan was among thern; when several were banished £iom the court in disgrace for "Frenche vices and braggefs, Bryan was one of the exiles. Fortunately for his court career, he was soon back in the royal Company, attending the King at the Field of Cloth of Gold in June

1520, distinguishing himself at the toumarnents held to celebrate the meeting of the

Kings of France and England9.

Henry ViII liked to reward and enrich his closest friends and servants, and Bryan was not slow to take his share of the royal largesse. Combining his passion for hunting with a lucrative court post, he accepted the Mastership of the Toils in 15 18, becoming responsible for stocking and maintaining Greenwich Park, where deer and other game were hunted"'. As time went on, he amassed more offices, with their attendant salaries and perquisites: by 1527, his yearly income from lands and fees was assessed at £400". in the meantirne, he did not neglect his pleasures (nor those of the King): playing at

"shovel board", tennis and bowls with his royal master", participating in court masques garbed in crimson velvet and cloth of gold'3, and jousting on the King's side in toumaments. The dangers of this pastime were forcibly brought home to him at

Greenwich in early 1525, when "by chaunce of shiveryng of the spere (ie. çplintering of a lance) ... [he] lost one of his iyes"lJ. He is said to have worn an eyepatch fiom then on, which no doubt enhanced his somewhat sinister reputation15,

Military service took him away fiom the court in the early 1520s. His "hardiness and nobIe our rage"'^ in Brittany in 1522 earned him a knighthood at the hands of his uncle, the Earl of Surrey, later 3rdDuke of Norfolk17. He was also sent to the Scottish Border in 7 O

1533, lending the prestige of the Privy Chamber to the demoralized English troops and commander stationed thereI8.

Under the 1526 Eltham Ordinances, Bryan traded his Privy Chamber post for the

Mastership of the Henchmen, These youths, some of whom were royal wards, were being brought up at court. They were to be educated in al1 the survival skills of Tudor times: courtesy, letters, feats of arms, and courtly pastimes". One suspects that Bryan, polymath and athIete, was a fine role mode1 for an aspiring Renaissance courtier. His absence Tom the Privy Chamber did not Iast long; during the "sweat" outbreak of 1528,

Henry Vabrought him back into close attendance as a grcatly reduced inner court fled the contagion of London for the healthier air of the country"'.

Ln his position as an intimate body servant (and fiiend) of the King, Bryan became a focal point for influence peddling, second only to Henry Norris as an inside track to the royal ea?'. Examples survive of his efforts on behaIf of his old Privy Chamber colleague, Lord Lisle; not only did he extend practical help but was ready with cautionary advice as well. "Keep all things secreter than you have been used", he wained Lisle, for

"there is nothing done or spoken but it is with speed knowen in the court"". This is the voice of the animal who knows his jungle well, and how best to survive in it.

As a connection of the Howards of Norfolk, Bryan was first cousin to Anne Boleyn".

A usehl Boleyn supporter in the early years of her ascendancy, he was sent abroad on several embassies seeking support for the King's "Great Matter" (the nullity suit between

Henry and his first Queen, Katherine of Aragon). Sent to France to escort the Pope's representative to England, then to Rome to attempt to sway the pontiff in Henry's favour, Bryan was reported to have "right well done his part"". Although his mission to the

Pope was doomed to failure, Henry was impressed by Bryan's "dexterity, diligence and good behaviour"", and rewarded him with a resident ambassadorship in France, where he remained for most of 153II6. Evidently his work was satisfactory, since he spent a large arnount of theoverseas over the next decade or so. No doubt his well-known flair for languages stood him in good stead during his stints in foreign courts".

In fact, a foreign posting kept Bryan fiom attending the coronation of his Boleyn cousin on 1 June, 1533. Anne's triumph soon faded, however, when the birth of a daughter was followed by rumours of quarrels between the royal couple. Perhaps Bryan sensed a weather change in the fortunes of the Boleyns, or perhaps a genuine grievance led him to bring an action against the Queen's brother in 1534. Whatever Bryan's motivation, the King supported his old friend against his new brother-in-la$'.

Essentially, Bryan had now left the Boleyn faction, perhaps aligning liimself anew with oid friends in the Aragonese faction, perhaps as a fiee agent within the Privy Chamber?'.

%%en the storm of allegations against the Queen broke over the court in May 1536,

Bryan was in the country; he was summoned back "upon his allegiance" by Cr~rnwell~~.

The minister may have suspected Bryan of complicity in Anne's sins, even of being one of her "lovers", but no charges were ever laid against him. Bryan later said lie "knew

[himselfl true and clear in conscience unto my prince"". When Anne was condemned to die, it was Bryan who took the news to the waiting Jane Seymou?', now poised to take the place of her former mistress. It may have been this callous indifference to his cousin's fate that earned him the nickname "Vicar of Hell", bestowed at this time by Cromwell in a lette?. Bryan was quick to take advantage of Henry Norris' fate, succeeding to Norris' title of Chief Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, in addition to several minor perquisitess4.

Bryan's role in Anne's tragedy and the bnef triurnph of Jane Seymour are still open to question. He may have been the one to bring Jane hto Anne's service; if tme, he may have had Jane in mind as (at least) a royal mistress3'. At least one author sees him as a key player in the coup, and he may have been coaching her in behaviour likely to attract and hold the KingJ6. Dr. Ives, however, comments that Bryan's succession to Norris' post may have been the result of mere opportunism, not necessarily of active conspiracyJ7. in other words, Bryan saw the brass ring, and stretched out his hand for it; he may not have forged it himself. It is also uncertain whether Bryan was aligned with the Aragonese faction (supporters of the King's elder daughter, Mary) that included his brother-in-law Sir Nicholas Carew, or whether he was looking solely to his own interests in securing a high place in the Privy Chamber". He seerns to have been leaning in

Mary's direction, since he was questioned as to rumours he had spread concerning

Mary's possible reinstaternent as heiress to the throne. After this close bmsh with trouble, he does not appear to have meddled in such questions agair~'~.

If Bryan hoped for Norris' other, more important post, he was disappointed. The

office of Groom of the Stool went to Sir Thomas Hemeage, one of Cromwell's protegés, although Bryan probably undertook the Groom's duties until Henneage's appointment"'.

Hemeage was also appointed a Chief Gentleman of the Privy Cliamber, reducing Bryan to a subordinate role. He retained his persona1 pull with the King; Lord Lisle's London 73 agent regarded him as being the most Uifluential man in the Privy Charnber at that time4'.

The failure of the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536-37 more or less confirmed England in her break with the Roman Catholic Church, and Henry VIII as Supreme Head of the

Church of England. This failure hstrated the Pope, who had recently created Henry's

Plantagenet cousin Reginald Pole a Cardinal. in addition, Pole had been entrusted, as

Papal legate to England, with the task of supporting the rebels'". To bolster Pole's efforts, the Pope issued a Bull on 3 1 March 1537 which affirmed the rightness of the

Pilgrirns' cause and urged them to reann to force the King to "the way of trutl~"~~.This was too much for Henry, who sent Bryan to the Continent with orders to "have ... Pole by some means trussed up and conveyed to Calais [English temtory]"; Bryan was to

"secretly appoint fellows for the purposeV4. Pole, however, was on his guard, and slipped into neutral territory. The King blamed Bryan and his fellow ambassador for

Yack of zeal and carenJ5,but called offthe chase. Bryan boasted that if Pole returned to

France lie would kill him with his own handJ6. The hstrated assassin retumed to

England in time for the birth of Henry's long-desired heir, Prince Edward, on 12 October

1537, and was in attendance at the Prince's christening4'.

Bryan's only recorded lapse from royal favour occurred on a retum to England in

August 1538. Several explanations have been advanced for his unfriendly reception by

Henry: financial embarrassment or drunken "follies" in southern France4', or a diplomatic gaffe in Paris"; but whatever the reason, he took to his bed, attended by the King's own pl~ysician~~.He was nunoured to be sick unto death for several weeks5', and it is tempting to speculate that his illness may have been a play for the royal sympathy. in 74 any case, he was at least partially recovered (and partially restored to favour) by

Christmas, although he had forfeited the post of Chief Gentleman of the Privy Chambers'.

in December 1539, Bryan was in Calais, waiting to welcome Anne of Cleves,

Henry's fourth Queen. Ha11 describes the

gentlemen of the Kynges houshold very rychly apparelled with great & massy [heavy] chaynes [of office], & in especial syr Frauncis Bryan[s] chaynes were of great valure and straunge fassyons'.

Obviously Bryan's fortunes had taken a turn for the better since his disgrace.

The remaining years of Henry's reign seem to have been relatively untroubled for

Bryan. in 1544 he brought 200 "billmen, pikes and ~thers"~'to the King's French campaign. His duties as Justice ofthe Peace for Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire included the collection of a "Benevolence" (special tax) for the defense of England against the French in the following ~ear~~.Until the very end of Henry's reign, Bryan remained on the staff of the Privy Chamber. On 2 February 1547 he performed his last duty for his King, acting once again as Master of the Henchrnen at Henry's f~neral~~.

Unlike several of the Privy Chamber staff, he was not remernbered in the royal will, but it is unlikely that he felt this lack very keenly. On the accession of Edward VI, Bryan was appointed keeper of several royal manors, and received Iarge gants of confiscated monastic propertyj7. His annual landed income now stood at £88SS8.

Now advanced in years, Bryan's energy remained prodigious. in September 1547, he acted as captain of light horse under the Duke of Somerset in his invasion of Scotland, and was created knight banneret on 27 Se~ternber5~.In 1548, he performed another, unusual service for his young King, not on the field but in the mariage bed6'. Bryan had 75 married Philippa, a wealthy widow, in 1517, but her death afier 15346' meant Bryan was fiee to marry Joan, the widow of the ninth Earl of Ormonde, an Irish peer. This match prevented (in the short term) a potentially dangerous marriage alliance between two powerful Irish clans6', Bryan was rewarded with the office of Lord Marshal of Ireland,

which he assumed on his arriva1 in Dublin in November, 1548.

His tenure of office proved to be bief, as was his second rnarriage; both ended with his sudden death at Clonrnel on 2 February, 1550. An autopsy failed to discover the cause, and the doctors concluded that Sir Francis had died of grief, an unlikely explanation at bed3. Bryan either left no wiIl or it was never found, and his only known son (bom by 3 1 January 15 18) was illegitimate64.

Bryan was a man of many, often conflicting, interests: a rake whose motto was "je tens grace" ("1 hope for ~alvation")~~,a soldier-politician who even in old age engaged in

Iiterary pastimes. In 1548, he published A dispraise of the life of the courtier and a

commendation of the life of the labourhg man 66,a translation tlirough the French of a

Spariish work by Antonio de Guevara. This treatise condemns the many evils of court

life and lauds the virtues cultivated by the common man, far from the corrupt world in

which he had spent his entire life. "Fauor and couetuousnes guideth the Courtier ... howe

muche the Court is full ... of enuye & ranco~r."~~Did Bryan reIish the irony of these

words, this mockery of his career?

To the end, although "old and spent by yeares", Bryan was still "full of youthfull

conditions", according to Roger ~schad'.One imagines an active, vital intelligence,

unbowed by the years, renewing the energy of youth through new challenges. I Starkey, Rei~,69.

' M.K.Dale, "Sir Francis Bryan" in The House of Commons. 1509-1558 ed. S.T. Bindoff Fondon: Secker & Warburg, l982), 1 : 527.

' Carolly Erickson, Great Harry: The Extravagant Life of Henry ViTi (New York: Surnrnit Books, 1980), 105.

' -L.P. XU, i, 98 1 (2).

David Starkey, "CastigIione at the Court of Henry VIII: Was There a Renaissance Court After All?" in Reforrnation. Humanism. and "Revolution" ed. Gordon Schochet (Washington: The Folger Institute, 1990), 176. 6 Byrne, 1: 593.

Hall, 581.

L.P. III, i, 870; Hall, 617.

IO Sidney Lee, "Sir Francis Bryan" in Dictionary of National Bio~raphyed. Sidney Lee (London: Smith, Elder & Co,, I908), 3: 150,

" -L.P. IV, ii, 2972.

" Erickson, Great Ha-, 105.

''Joycelyne G. Russell, The Field of Cloth of Gold: Men and Manners in 1520 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 167.

''Hall, 707-708.

l5 Erickson, Great Hay, 105.

l6 Dale, 527.

l7 Lee, 150.

la Starkey, "Representation Through Lntimacy", 200.

IV R.E. Brock, "The Courtier in EarIy Tudor Society, Illustrated from Select Examples" (unpublished P h.D thesis, University of London, 1963), 43-44. 'O 'O -L.P.IV, ii, 4422.

" Byme, II: 337.

--7'7 Byme, 1: 19.

" Byrne, V: 89 n.1.

lJDale, 527-528. '

?' Ibid., 528.

26 Ibid, 528.

" Ibid.,527.

'' Paul Friedmann, Anne Bolevn: A Chapter of EngIish History. 1527-1536 (London: Macmillan and Co., l884), iI: 37-38.

29 Starkey, Reign, 113.

30 -L.P.Xm, i, 981 (2).

" -L.P. Xm, i, 981 (2).

" -L.P. X, 908.

'" X, 873; Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 236.

'' Retha M. Warnicke, "The Fa11 of Anne Boleyn: A Reassessment" History LXX (1985), 5.

'"Mane Louise Bruce, Anne Boleyn (London: Pan Books, 1972), 276.

37 Ives, Anne Bolevn, 372n.

j8 Starkey, "lntimacy and Innovation", 114; Ives, Anne Boleyn, 372n.; Warnicke, 1

39 Thomas Hinde, Courtiers: Nine Hundred Years of Court Life (London: Victor Gollancz. 1986): 52. 'O 'O Starkey, "Privy Chamber", 240-241.

" Byme, Di: 367.

" Ibid., TV: 219.

43 Ibid., TV: 219.

"'Madeleine Hope Dodds and Ruth Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace 1536-1537 and the Exeter Conspiracv. 1538 (London: Frank Cass & Co., 1971), iI: 28 1.

46 L.P. XII, i, 996.

" -L.P. XII, ii, 9 1 1.

Dale, 528; David Starkey, "The Court: Castiglione's Ideal and Tudor Reality" Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XLV: 45(1982), 237.

'O 'O Ibid., V: 233.

'' L.P. XiII, ii, 3 12.

5' Starkey, "The Court", 237.

53 Hall, 852.

" L.P. XM, il 275.

55 L.P. XX, il 622, 623.

56 Smith, Henry Vm, 3 14.

" Dale, 529; Lee, 15 1.

58 Dale, 529.

59 Lee, 151.

60 Hinde, 52. 6' Lee, 15 1.

Q Dale, 529.

63 Smith, Tudor Traped~,23.

Dale, 527, 529.

65 Starkey, Reim, 1 13.

66 Dale, 529.

'' Patria Thomson, Sir Thomas Wyatt and his Back~round(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, l964), 245.

68 Lee, 152. Chapter Six - Baldassare Castiglione: "To shape in wordes a good Courtier"'

Now that we have looked at the court of Henry VIII and at the careers of four of its denizens, it is time to establish a "yardstick" for the evaluation of those four careers.

Happily, a contemporary measure is available to us, and one which, being foreign in origin, carries no stigma of bias in favour of one or another of our four featured men.

To find this gold standard, we must travel to the Italian court of Urbino, considered by contemporaries to epitornize the Italian Renaissance2. This court formed the setting and the backdrop for a best-selling, highly popular book of the sixteenth century, II Libro dei Cortegiano (The Book of the Courtier), written by an Italian nobleman, Baldassare

Castiglione. Since its original publication in 1528, it has seen rnany reprintings and translations, and kept the Bible cornpany on the bedside table of the Ernperor Charles V3.

Before we examine Castiglione's work, we must first answer two questions: what gave this little Italian book its universal appeal? What rnakes it a suitable gauge for the success or failure of four courtiers of Henrician England?

Baldassare Castiglione was a product of the Italian Renaissance, the great re- discovery of ancient and classical texts which were subjected to new scrutiny and put to new uses in the world of the fifieenth and sixteenth centuries. Although Italy fomed the nucleus of this re-awakening, other parts of Europe were touched by the new (old) learning, and each adapted Renaissance ideals for its own use. Even with tliese local variations, however, there were certain European constants, one of which was the modus 8 1 operandi, the political reality, of the court. As in Henry VIIi's England, the princely

courts of Renaissance Italy formed a microcosrn of the state, centred on the der, with the

nucleus of power being the prince's bedchamber". Also, Italian courtiers were arrayed in

a "pecking-order" of importance, those closest to the derhaving the highest standing.

As in England, rnenial tasks performed for the prince took on a more dignified aspect:

"the court exalts the functi~n"~.Clearly, there were some basic structural foundations

which European courts had in cornrnon, and this universality helps to explain the

international success of The Courtier. In addition, it makes its precepts (at least in

theory) applicable at Henry VU'Scourt. One author, in particular, has cornmented on the

"fit" between Castiglione's ideas and the courtiers of Henry VU16, and we will explore

tliis application further in the next chapter.

Born in Mantua in 1478, Baldassare Castiglione led a life of service in several

European courts, including the Papal Court in Rome and that of his native city. His

happiest years, however, were spent in the service (1 504- 1508) of the gentle intellectual

duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltro of Urbino7. The court circle of the hi11 city included

sorne of Renaissance Italy's brightest lights, immorîalized by Castiglione in The Courtier

(although to what extent the brilliance of the court was idealized, we cannot be sure8). To

a contemporary, Castiglione, the poet, soldier and diplomat, epitomized the ideal courtier

his characters conjured9; he was widely respected, well-Iiked and deeply mourned at his

death in 1529.

The Courtier was first sketched in 1508 on the death of duke Guidobaldo, but not

published in its final form until 1528. It describes a typical evening pastime in the roorns of Urbino's duchess, Elisabetta, set in March of 1507. The circle of courtiers decide to play a parlour game, choosing '"t shape in wordes a good Courtier"", and the garne so absorbs the group as to occupy four evenings (Books) of question and debate. The conversations are fictitious, but al1 the characters are real people, and al1 are known to have been in Urbino during the time in question". Popular on the Continent,

Cortegiano was first translated into English by Sir Thomas Hoby in 1561, and found a wide readership at the court of Henry VIIi's daughter, Elizabeth 1.

The book is a treatise on the attributes of the ideal courtier of any princely court, written in a conversational, witty, and readable style. Castiglione knows his characters, and is always aware that his contemporary readers know them as welI; he is careful to allow each to speak in keeping with his or her own personality". Part of the book's fascination, especially for the modem reader, is the mirror it holds up to the values and mindset of the Italian Renaissance; the characters shape their ideal based on what is important to them and to their society". While Castiglione wrote the book as a nostalgie portrait of the happiness he remernbered at Urbino, it rnay also be seen as a moral treatise of sorts - a comment on the very values that shaped the courtly ideal, as well as the more unhappy aspects of Renaissance society in Italy. On its most prosaic level, however, The

Courtier is a survival guide to the labyrinthine world of the court, a "how-ton for aspiring courtiers". This aspect gives us our "yardstick"; we have in The Courtier a set of

objective standards against which we can measure the actions of our Henrician courtiers.

More than that, we can also look at how well their motives and personalities (as revealed by contemporary letters and references) fulfilled Castiglione's precepts, since his 83 philosophy embraces not only etiquette but morality".

Would a "manners manual" be useful? Aspiring courtiers (and the public in general) had a poor impression of courts as institutions. Centres of power and influence though they were, courts (and their inhabitants) had suffered a bad press throughout the Middle

Ages. Courts were seen as dens of deception, vice, and greed; the only successfd courtiers were corrupt, and success brought its own dilemmas: envy, resentment, the danger of ruinI6. Obviously, this impression was not wholly accurate, and those on their way in might fmd that such a book gave them a clearer picture of the world they were about to enter and of the behaviour which would best allow them to succeed ("forewarned is forearmed").

On a more political level, there was a new type of court on the rise in the ltalian city- states, as an increasing number, formerly repubrican in form, were coming under hereditary rule. Since this system increased the odds of rule by a young child or an incompetent man, the responsibility laid on those around such a derincreased proportionately with his inability to govem, and his courtiers were often an important part of a ruling clique. The better quaIified these men were, the better served were the subjects of that ruler" (as we shall see, the public good was an important goal in

Castiglione's philosophy).

The Courtier opens as the courtiers of Urbino gather in the duchess' roorns, trying out ideas for that evening's entertainment. They settle on Federigo Fregoso's suggestion, and begin to delineate for themseIves their ideal of courtly behaviour. The game is moderated by Lady Emilia Pia, who selects the player to start the game, and guides the discussion as it evolves. Interruptions, witticisms, and asides pepper the four nights' discussion, adding to the final picture of the perfect courtier.

In Book 1, many of the "extemals" are established. The courtier must be of noble birth, since a man of rank will feeI the pressure of family honour to behave virtuo~sly'~.

He must be physically attra~tive'~and strong, adept at al1 featç of arms, as his primary occupation is to be military"'. He is to avoid rash duels, but "alwaies shew a readinesse and a stornacke"" if trouble carmot be averted. He should show surpassing ski11 in the hunt, the joust, tennis" - and he mut be a man's man, "not so sofi and womanish as many ... that ... pampre them ~elves"'~in dress and appearance. He must take care to avoid arousing the envy of his less gifted confreres and "keepe conipany pleasantly with every man"". He should speak well, blending subtle wit and honest dignity, while avoiding tediu~il'~.As befits their Renaissance environment, the players want their courtier to be well-educated, especially in the hurnanities: "the true and principal1 ornament of the minde ... are let ter^"'^. Skill in music, both singing and playing musical instruments, is alsu advocated, as is the art of drawing and paintir$'. AI1 these talents must be displayed with a grace and nonchalance (grazia e sprezzatrira) that downplay the effort involved and make difficult feats seem easy'8. (We will examine these characteristics in more detail later in this chapter.)

Book II concems itseIf more with the inner man, with the etiiics and values that govem his behaviour. Modesty ("lowlinesse") is suggested as a safeguard against enq, and ready praise of the achievements of others Ieads to a reputation for generosivO.

Discretion and moderation in al1 things are very important, both of which demand a high degree of self-knowledge3'. In his relationship with his prince, the courtier must be careful of his talk, as wit can so easily become over-familiarity, praise can turn to flattery, or thoughtful discussion become gloomy". Asking for favours for others is permissible, but asking for oneself is not: '?O purchase favour at great mens handes, there is no better way than to deserve it"I3. Since one is judged by the Company one keeps, one must choose one's fiiends with care3'; by the same token, a courtier should leave the service of a wicked prince, "least hee tast of the bitter paine that al1 good men feele that serve the wickeP3*. A good reputation is all-important36. Make the most of abilities, but downplay deficiencies". Above ail, stnve for "a certaine honest meane, which ... is a ... sure shield against envievJ8.

Book III is mainly concemed with the qualities and behaviour of the female counterpart of the courtier, the "gentlewoman of the palace"39. The characters create her more or less in the image of the male ideal, conjuring a discreetly gracious lady of niany talents and cautioning her to guard her reputation, lest the flirtatious dialogues of courtly love be mistaken for misconduct, endangering her reputationJO.

The focus returns to the male courtier in Book IV,in which Castiglione reveals the senous and elevated purpose behind al1 the graces and virtues of his courtly ideal: to acquire the favour of his prince, so as to be abIe to advise hiin, leading him by example to virtuous governrnent and away fiorn dishonourable policies"'. The courtier will teach the prince to distinguish the tnie man fiom the flatterer and help hirn to overcome what the author sees as the two greatest flaws to which rulers are prone, ignorance and self- absorption. These flaws, Castiglione believes, have their beginnings in the dishonesty of 8 6 tiiuse who hover around great men". Since bIunt home-truths may not sit well with the powerful, the Iessons should be subtly sweetened with merry conversation, as the prince is encouraged to concentrate on worthy pursuitsJ3.Again, the courtier is warned to leave the service of a truly incorrigible prince, as his own reputation will suffer by association with such a masteru.

The Book of the Courtier is defmitely a class-conscious document, written by a gentleman for other gentlemen'", but in this it is tme to its age and the Renaissance reliance on the authority of classical sources. The firm conviction, dating back to

Aristotle, that good breeding produces bctter men, was still firmly held by sixteenth- century European societyJ6. AIso, first impressions, especially crucial at court, tended to favour the nobleman over the base-bomJ7. If he must mix with the lower orders, let Iiim keep sucli contact to a minimum, lest he cheapen his imageJ8, In contemporas, England, the ideal gentleman did not work with his hands, but rather, through goodness and virtue, performed functions useful to the state4'. Perhaps this expIains why CastigIione's philosophy as expressed in Book iV found such a wide English readership (Hoby's translation saw thee more editions by 1603)'~.

Castiglione's combination of soldier and man of letters fused an oId ideal with a new trend. The Middle Ages chivalrîst, loyal to his prince and courteous to ladies, acquired a broad-based humanistic education and becarne dl things to al1 peoples1. This "updating" of the chivalric ideal boosted the popularity of The Courtier, and resonated with the sixteenth-century English belief that good education and soldierly virtue were best suited to those of gentle birthS2. Ruth Kelso believes that this book, more than any other single 87 work, may have advanced the fusion (in Elizabeth's England) of lettered education with the airs and graces of the courts1. The great Elizabethan scholar Roger Ascharn held that ihis

book advisedly read and diligently followed but one year ... in England, would do ... more good ... than three years' travel abroad ..?'

Here we have hther support for our use of Castiglione's ideal as our standard of measurement.

The main goal of the courtier is universal favour - that is, to be held in high regard by his fellows and by his superiors, but most of al1 by his prince, with a view to being in a position of tmwith that prince. Castiglione wants his courtier to move through his world with grazia ("graciousness"), a high state of culture and elegant refinement, the central quality of civilized behaviours. To attain and maintain the image of grmia, a nurnber of other qualities are recomrnended, notably sprezzatrrra (roughly,

"non~halance")~~.Sprezzairira endows a difficult feat with an almost indifferent casualness, making something which most people would have to try very hard to accornplish seern childishly easy. The beauty of such an attitude is the effect it has on the courtier's audience: "if he did such a dificult thing so well, having put himself to so little effort, just think what he could do if he really tried!"57. The courtier should also strive for gravita ("soberness"), which lends dignity to the conversatiori and implies a formidable wisdomS8.

Another asset in the pursuit of grnzia is mediocritu ("moderation"), tempering an zt.*,rih:c r;i'& 2s üppû&ç. Cur exampie, seriousness is to be teavened with carefùlly- chosen humour, pide offset by modesp. Mediocrita has the virtue of allowing the courtier the flexibility to fit into alrnost any situation with ease. Such manipulation of one's inner and outer being requires a great deal of self-knowledge, and the courtier is told that he must be aware, not only of his own limitations (so that he does not over-reach them and appear deficient before his audience), but of the image he projects, and he must be alert to that image at al1 times. In effect, the courtier is in a perpetual state of self- creation, a work of art forever in progre~s~~.

Never is self-awareness more crucial than in dealings with the prince ("to teach him,

1 shoulde neede first to leame rny selfen6'),whom the wise courtier treats with reverence, especially if he is drawn into the chamed circle of the private chamber. Even princes need their quiet, private time with friends, and the cautious courtier will strive to be good

Company, leaving discussion of weighty matters until the prince is ready to deal with them6'. The successful courtier will trim his sails to the prevailing wind of the princely moodb3,which, again, requires a certain flexibility.

True to his Renaissance education and surroundings, Castiglione drew heavily on classical authorities as inspirations for both his philosophy and his dialogue style, which was cast in the mould of Cicero's dialogue De Oratore, the search for the ideal orator6'.

Cicero, in tum, had been influenred by Aristotle, who wanted al1 citizens to strive for happiness through virtuous activity of a practical nature; the purest form of such activity was in the political sphere, usefulness to the state6'. Castiglione translated that ideal to his own time, bringing Anstotle and Cicero to the Renaissance court: while Cicero's orator urged his fellow citizens to virtue, Castiglione's courtier worked for society at 89 large by leading his prince to the same Cicero aIso lent Castiglione his ideal of the

Golden Mean, the balance between extremcs, applied at first to surface matters such as dress and language but later extended to apply to al1 thingsG7.

In Castiglione's world, faithful application of the tenets of the first three Books is essential if the goal of the fourth is to be realized through princely favour. Even equipped with al1 these social skills, however, the courtier must exercise caution when instructing his prince, lest he lose the influence he has laboured so long to win6'. Castiglione stresses the necessity of a gradua1 approach, of sugar-coating disagreeable pills of wisdom and guidand9. ironically, so well did he disguise his own teachings in a pleasant, readable manners-manual that he was criticized, by contemporaries and in later years, for having written a trivial, frivolous account of a shallow group of courtier^'^. For the sake of any courtiers who followed his advice, it is to be hoped that princes were as easily fooled as his critics.

A witty Renaissance treatise which cited cIassical authority to encourage the worldly behaviour of sixteenth-century court life could not fail to be popular. By advising ambitious men of the age to combine courtly pleasures with a higher purpose (and, most probably, gain for thernselves), and laying out a set of rules which were applicable internationally, Castiglione's littIe book became a European best-seller. Some men whose careers paralleled the Urbino ideal became popes; others, less assiduous, were bitter failures7'. Was this inevitable? In the next chapter we will attempt to determine whether Castiglione's maxims could have been applicable at the court of Henry VITI, and to what extent our four courtiers fulfilled his requirernents. ' Baldassare Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier trans. Sir Thomas Hoby (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1966), 29.

Ruth Elizabeth Young, "Introduction to Castiglione and his Courtier" Smith College Studies in Modem Lanmiages 21(1939-40), 243; Walter Raleigh, "Lntroduction", The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione trans. Sir Thomas Hoby (London: David Nutt, l9OO), xvi-xvii.

' J. R. Woodhouse, Baldesar Castinlione: A Reassessment of "The Courtier'' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1978), 4.

' Sergio Bertelli, Franco Cardini, and Elvira Garbero Zorzi (eds.), The Courts of the Italian Renaissance (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1986), 9.

6 Starkey, Reign, 33-34.

' W. H. D. Rouse, "introduction", The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione trans. Sir 'Tliornas Hoby (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1966), vii.

Orville Prescott, Princes of the Renaissance (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), 270.

' Young, 240.

" Woodhouse, 16.

'' Young, 249-50.

'' Woodhouse, 1, 3.

l5 Sydney Anglo, "The Courtier: The Renaissance and Clianging Ideais" in Courts of Europe: Politics. Patronage and Rovalty. 1400-1 800, ed. A. G. Dickens (New York: Greenwich House, 1984), 36.

" Anglo, 35.

l7 Woodhouse, 192. ''Castiglione, 3 1-32; Ruth Kelso, The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth Century (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964), 23.

'' Castiglione, 33.

'O 'O Ibid., 35-36.

''Ibid., 40.

" Ibid., 41-42.

'3 Ibid., 39.

IJIbid., 42.

3 Ibid., 57.

'"bid., 68,71.

Ibid., 75, 77.

" Ibid., 48-49.

29 Ibid., 95.

30 Ibid., 129.

31 Ibid., 102.

" Ibid., 106.

'' Ibid., 109.

'' Ibid., 1 19.

l5 Ibid., 112.

36 Ibid., 127.

37 Ibid., 132.

--10 hiii., i33. j9 ibid., 189.

''O ''O Ibid., 190.

'' Ibid,, 26 1.

'' Ibid., 262.

43 lbid., 265.

" John R. Hale, Renaissance (New York: Time Incorporated, 1965), 56.

16 Kelso, 22.

'' Castiglione, 34-35; Kelso, 22.

50 Julia Cartwright, The Perfect Courtier. Baldassare Castiglione: His Life and Letters, 1478-1 529 (New York: Dutton and Co., 1927), iI: 441.

*] Hale, 56; Bertelli et al., 190,

" Kelso, 43.

'"Raleigh, lii.

*5 Wayne A. Rebhorn, Courtly Performances: Masking: and Festivity in Castidione's "Book of the Courtier" (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1978), 41.

56 Ibid., 33. Hoby translates this word as "recklessness"

57 Castiglione, 49.

Rebhorn, 4 1-43. 59 Daniel Javitch, "fi Cortegiano and the Constraints of Despotism" in Castiglione: The Ideal and the Real in Renaissance Culture ed. Robert W. Hanning and David Rosand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 19.

60 Rebhorn, 30-3 1; Robert W. Hanning, "Castiglione's Verbal Portrait" in Casti~lione: The Ideal and the Real in Renaissance Culture ed. Robert W. Hanning and David Rosand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1W), 134.

61 Castiglione, 279.

'' Castiglione, 108; Javitch, 2 1.

63 Castiglione, 106.

Starkey, Reim of Hen~ViiT, 33,

65 Lawrence V. Ryan, "Book Four of Castiglione's Courtier: Climax or Afterthaught?" Studies in the Renaissance XIX ( 1 160- 16 1.

66 David Starkey, "The Age of the Household: Politics, Society and the Arts c. 1350-c. 1550" in The Later Middle Apes by Stephen Medcalf (London: Methuen & Co., 1981), 28 1-282; Starkey, "The Court", 232.

67 Woodhouse, 72, 102.

Castiglione, 279.

" Ibid,, 5. Chapter Seven - "This perfect trade of Courtiershippe"'

In the last chapter we examined the "words to live by" set out by Baldassare

Castiglione in his Courtier: guidelines for success for prospective courtiers, fiom the quintessential courtier of the Italian Renaissance court of Urbino. Before we try to decide whether these "rules" were apposite to particular cases, however, we must ask ourseives whether they were applicable in a foreign setting, in the court of Henry VUI's England.

England's court in the early Tudor period has generally been seen as a slightly rougher version of the Renaissance stereotype: magnificent, but borrowing heavily from the courts of France and Burgundy for its fashions and rnanners2, somewhat less elegant and refined than those courts. Nevertheless, at least one author is prepared to argue that the English court under Henry ViII constituted a true Renaissance court, not least for the way in which it operatedJ. As in other courts of Europe at that time, the English King was a personal rnonarch, exercising significant control over the disposition of lucrative and influential offices and posts. The result was fierce cornpetition between his courtiers to gain the royal ear, which was best approached from within Henry's imer court, the group of fiiends who attended hirn in the Privy Chamber. This situation was hardIy unique to England; rather, it was entirely typical of the setup of a European court, including that of Urbino, the setting of The Courtier. This being the case, Castiglione's strictures appear, for the most part, to be universally applicable in European courts, and were flexible enough to allow adaptation to specific societies and situations. 9 5

Henry VIii's England, according to Dr. Starkey, was particularly apt for infiltration by persuasive men4. In part this was due to the nature of the King himself. Henry was readily influenced by foreign fashions (witness his borrowing of the French title of gentilshommes de la chambre for his minions) and by strong personalities alike. in addition, the structure of the inner court after 15 18 virtually guaranteed the newly-created

Gentlemen of the Piivy Chamber access to the King's private space at almost any time5.

Under such circumstances, the former minions could (and did) play the courtly game with their King almost unrestrained, although the 15 19 expulsion makes the point that their advancement had not gone unnoticed by those less happily piaced.

Before attempting to evaluate the careers of Our four featured men in the light of

Castiglione's ideals, we must remember that The Courtier does represent an ideal; none of

Our men (or, indeed, any of Henry Vm's courtiers) could possibly live up to such a riçorous standard. When deciding whether a given courtier "fills the bill", we will examine the overall picture, altliough illustrated by specific examples of behaviour. Our evaluation of the careers of our four English courtiers will take place in two stages: a revisitation of the three crucial Books of The Courtier (calibrating Our "yardstick"), using specific docmented examples Çom their lives; and a look at each courtier's overall "fit" with Castiglione's precepts, looking for parallels with or diversions fiom that code of conduct.

Recall that Book 1 dealt with mainly extemal, surface features, with heavy ernphasis on how the courtier appears to his audience. He must be nobly born: al1 our Tudor courtiers fulfil this requirement. Carew, Noms and Bryan were the sons of knights; 96

Compton's father was a gentleman farmer. Al1 were well-trained in the sports so beloved of the higher ranks of society: Bryan parleyed his enthusiasm for the hunt into a tidy source of income, and al1 four men participated in the toumaments which figured prominently in Tudor court life. Carew, in particular, was an outstanding exponent of the

martial arts, becoming farnous for his showy exploits as the "Blue KnigW6. These exercises, both para-military and sporting in nature, combined two essential attributes of

Castiglione's courtly ideal: the soldier's strength and skill, and the athlete's ability7.

Serious military activities were not neglected, either. Bryan, in particular, shone in

various military exploits throughout his long career, and he and Compton were knighted

for vaIour on the field of battleg.

Ln social situations, the courtier must be good Company, well-spoken and witty,

honest and dignified without being tediousg. Although the evidence is sketchy, we hear

sheds of our courtiers' voices: Bryan was a noted witiO;Wolsey referred to Carew as

"well-mamered""; Noms was a popular figure at court"; and Compton was cited for his

"wisdome and fide1itievi3.Castiglione wanted his courtier to be well-educated,

particularly in the humanitiesi4;here, Bryan is the shining example, a poet, translator, and

vivid letter-writerI5.

in his display of al1 these fine qualities, the courtier must rely on grazia

("graciousnessY')and sprewatura (making the dificult look easy) to heighten the effect

on his audience of his skilful performances. Carew's most famous tiltyard stunt bears out

the tmth of this connection: supporting the weight of the twelve-foot tree "rnost stoutly",

he aroused "the extreme admiration and astonishment of e~erybody"'~.Bryan provides another example of the effect of these social graces, being described as "behaving prudently and beloved by ali" on a mission to Rome".

The strictures outlined in Book II dwell more on the behaviour of the courtier and his relations with his fellows and his prince alike. Gravità ("soberness"), mecliocrità

("moderation") and an "honest meane"" are recornmended, as a safeguard against envy. in practice, this advice yielded mixed results. Although Norris survived the 1519 expulsion of the minions as a "cautious ne~tral"'~who was obviously not obnoxious enough to warrant removal, his vaunted discretion helped him not at al1 when the Boleyn crisis struck the court in May 1536. Likewise, Bryan and Carew, expelled from the Privy

Chamber in 15 19 had certaidy not been behaving with anything rescmbling mediocritu or gravità. Even so, their punishrnent was short-lived, and Bryan in particular was known to have made incautious remarks after his retum to the favoured cir~le'~,which seem to have gone unrebuked.

Castiglione advises care and attention in dealing with one's prince, whose moods must be monitored as saiIors watch skies and seas. The wise courtier moulds his approach to his master's sisals, adapting his talk and behaviour accordingly, handling him with delicacy and without pushy overtures. Again, the 1519 purge provides us with a prime example: the minions,

... not regardyng [the King's] estate nor degree, were so familier and homely with hym, and plaied suche light touches with hym that they forgat themselfes ..." and were sent away fiom the court as a resuIt.

The courtier, conscious always of thefaçade he presents to the world, must be very 9 8 careful of his reputation. This colours his choice of fiends, associates and the prince he serves, since the Company he keeps will reflect on him". For himseIf he should ask nothing, but (again choosing his moment with care) he may seek favours for f'kiends2'; in essence, Castiglione is making a virtue of the old court garne of influence-peddling.

Extensive evidence survives of the assistance given to Arthur Plantagenet, Lord Lisle, by both Norris and Bryan (via Lisle's London agent, John Husee). In another instance,

Bryan teased his King into helping a mutual friend with his gambling debts14.

The true raison d'être for the courtly ideal is discussed in Book N:through the

favour which he has won by means of his performance and behaviour, he will be able to

influence his prince for good. By encouraging and developing the fine qualities of his

der, the courtier has taken on the role of public servant. Naturally, the same cautioris

apply as set out in Book iI: take one's conversational cues fioin the prince, and sugar-coat

the pills, so as not to risk the loss of that hard-won intimacy,

It must be admitted that very little evidence exists for Book IV-like behaviour an the

part of our four courtiers. This may be due to the fact that, if any such occurred, it was in

the easy intimacy of the Privy Chamber, unlikely to be recorded. It is also possible that

our men recognized the strength of will of their King and the power he wielded: self-

preservation, political wisdom or simple inertia might have been enough to stop their

mouths. On a more basic level, these were animals of a compIex jungle, who may not

have had time or inclination for any other pursuit than self-advancement. There were

many snouts jostling for space at this particular trough, and one had to stay aIert to keep

one's place. The attitude of Sir William Compton, who made a vast fortune at court, was summed up in one devastating comment: "more attentive to his profit, then publique affaires"". He was hardly alone.

It is true that there was at least one courtier who "dare[d] boldly speak his mind to the King''26, on the surface at least echoing the ideal who could

breake his mind to [the prince], and alwaies inform him fianckly of the truth ... without fear ... to dispiease him27.

That man, of course, was Bryan. Unfortunately, most of the surviving evidence points

away fiom any conclusion that Sir Francis was leading Henry VIIi to virtue, public or

private. As a Member of Parliament, he was singled out as a good bad example by the

rebels of the Pilgrimage of Grace, who accused him of knowing nothing of his borough

and of voting for the King's grants across the board". However, before we judge (for

example) his ready acquiescence in the King's plans to capture and murder his

troublesome relative, Reginald Cardinal Pole, we must make an effort to view this plan in

the context of the time. From Henry's point of view, Pole's activities amounted to the

encouragement of rebels on behalf of a foreign power, and could undoubtedly de-stabilize

his kingdom if allowed to go unchecked. h the sixteenth century, an unstable kingdom

was an unsafe one, for king and subjects alike; fiom this vantage point, Henry's actions,

while not quite laudable, become at Ieast understandable, and the assassination of Pole

@ad it occurred) could have been termed judicial rnurder. "Good government" has

different meanings for different epochs. In the same way, Bryan's parliamentary

\ . .- . perf~rn?lnce(rsszxkg he xu!k nzs as baJ 5s itpreseiiieu). was scarceiy arypicai tor the 1 O0 time.

Castiglione wanted his courtier to refuse to carry out evil orders fiom his prince'9.

Perhaps this might have been possible in the srnall court of a minor ruler, but it would have been political (and possibly actual) suicide at the court of Henry VUI. If Compton really assisted his King in arranging a royal infidelity, was that a sign of elastic morals or

realisrn on Compton's part30? Bryan had unquestionably been ready to commit murder at his King's command. It is possible to speculate that Sir Nicholas Carew was led into

treasonable conspiracy as a result of doubts about his long-held loyalty to the wishes of his royal rnaster, or that he hoped to change Henry's mind about his treatrnent of his elder

daughter. Carew's long-held policy of bowing to the King's will even as he disagreed

with his actions may fmally have ceased to soothe his conscience.

Finally, we return to Our four courtiers. Did they generally fit the ideal set out by

Castiglione? If so, was that the basis for any success they rnay have had? Were their

failures mainly attributable to unwitting lapses from the gold standard?

Sir William Compton seems, at least on the surface, to measure up to the courtIy

yardstick. Athlete and boon companion to Henry VIiI, he left behind concrete proof of

his master's esteem in a spoor of lucrative offices and an impressive list of properties.

Recognizing the source of his advancement, his loyalty to the Crown and to Henry VIii

was unchanged throughout his career: his tomb effigy wears the King's livery chain, and

his house bears royal emblems3'. His legacy suggests a man in the process of building a

power-base, but that power remained potential, forming no faction and exercising no red

political influence3'. Even without such power, he seems to have made enemies of some 101 influential people, among them Queen Katherine of Aragon and Thomas Cardinal

Wolsey3. However well his exploits fit Castiglione's ideal, mediocrità and gravira do not seem to have been his long suits.

There is no evidence of any Book IV-style ambitions in Compton's life. Lnstead, he seerns to have used his intimacy with the King mainly to benefit himself and his heirs, wasting nothing and overlooking few opportunities to increase his persona1 wealth.

Overall, he appears to have excelled at the surface sparkle recommended in Book 1 of The

Courtier, but in focusing his energies so consistently on the accumulation of lands and offices, he went no further along Castiglione's path to public service. He is an example of a successful courtier who did very well for himself, for reasons which have little to do with the thoughtful methods of Book Ii and the noble goals of Book W.

In contrast, Sir Nicholas Carew presents a closer overall match with the precepts of

The Courtier. "A jolly gentleman, fit for the favour of King Henry the EightY3",Carew projected an image of dashing knight-errant and consummate horseman, ready to attempt the seerningly impossible for the sake of effect, a fine illustration of sprezznttwci in action.

Tournaments were part of a systern of prestige propaganda3', and the prominent roIe

Carew was given is indicative of both his ski11 and the King's trust in it. Henry Vm knew the value of a reliable "star", whose performances would contribute to the desired

image of martial strength and the wealth and power of the Tudors.

A look at Carew's indoor pursuits gives a more uneven parallel with Castiglione's strictures. Although he left no writings other than letters, Sir Nicholas did own some beautifùlly-bound books, including a copy of Froissart's Chronicles and a large gilded 103

parchment boov6. He must have had (at least) a collecter's appreciation for fine objects,

even if he had never actually read the books himself. Unfortunately, his manners (at Ieast

in his younger days) probably did not match his fmer tastes; as one of the infamous

"minions" he was ejected from the court for the high crime of "French vices and

braggesW3'. Such cornrnentary does not bring the word mediocrità to mind, and gravità

was probably not much in evidence either. That he regained his former place at court

with the other returning minions, achieving and retaining the office of Master of the

Horse, suggests that he leamed some valuable lessons fiom his brief disgrace.

The next years tested these tessons. For a long time, Carew was able to be privately

sympathetic to Katherine of Aragon and her daughter Mary, yet avoid triggering any

hostility on the part of the King: obviously he knew his rnaster well. This loyalty says

something about the man, since such an attitude was hardly the fast track to advancement.

We have seen how, in 1536, he made attempts to restore Mary to her father's favour;

these efforts have the feel of Book W. Ultimately, of course, this conflict of loyalties

was to prove his undoing, and the question of why he met his fa11 has a bearing on our judgement of his "fit" with Castiglione's ideal. It is possible that his involvement in the

conservative conspiracy had a Book IV-like intention of improving the relationship

between the King and Mary: "set[ting] him [the prince] in the way of ~irtue"~! Again

along Book II-Book IV Iines, he may have been making tentative moves away fiom the

service of an evil prince39. SimpIer explanations include an inability to reconcile his

persona1 loyalties with the gritty political reality of the court world (survival first);

arrogantly believing himself invulnerable; or poor judgement, conspiring with the wrong 1 O3 people, of whom Geofiey Pole stands out as a particularly weak reed.

Speculation of this sort, many years after the fact, is fiaught with peril, especially considering the many questions raised by contemporaries on this very question. 1 lem toward the explanation that Carew placed a moral imperative (his Ioyalty to Mary) above political survival. He mut have felt there was a chance of success, and if his goal was a change in regime, then he was indeed trying to "leave the service of an evil prince". This, in addition to his earIier efforts to reconcile the King with his elder daughter, places him in line with the high moral tom of The Courtier. His career may fit Castiglione's mode1 best of our four men; ironicalIy, that rnay well have finished him.

Henry Norris, at first glance, seerns to cast almost no shadow. Beyond the records of the offices and grants he amassed, his character and behaviour must be distilled fiom mentions in letters and accounts of events. From such evidence, he emerges as a popular, pleasant man who more than fulfilled Castiglione's recommendations about using his privileged intimacy with his King to beg favours for fiiends, Naturally, he was well- conipensated for these favours, and did not neglect to "deserven4' rewards fiom the King for himself. Like our other courtiers, he was a fiequent participant in tournaments, up to that ill-omened joust on May Day, 1536. On the evidence, Nonis was mediocriiu personitied, and probably displayed grazia as well: more than one colleague referred ta him as "çentle Mr. Norris'"". There is no evidence of Book IV-style approaches to his

King; however, the kindness he showed to Wolsey in the twilight of the Cardinal's power rnight possibly have extended to speaking a word for him to the King.

Norris appears to have lost his life as a resuIt of a combination of bad luck (being 1O4 linked to the wrong people at the wrong time) and limited foresight and imagination. He had, after all, been at court for many years and had lived close to the King, and probably knew Henry very well. Of al1 people, he should have been able to read the writing on the factional wall. On the other hand, he very probably had delayed his second marriage (to a

Boleyn cousin, remember) for that very reason. In addition, not even the most assiduous trouble-borrower could have foreseen the extent to which Henry was prepared to go to rid himself of his second Queen. Norris' refusal to accuse Anne, even with the promise of a pardon dangled before him, speaks volumes for his integrityJ'. His offer of single combat reveals a Middle Ages mind-set, which may have been the reason for his participation in the courtly love game played in the Queen's apartmentsJ3. This game, ultimately, rnay have been his death, and hers; this was liis bad luck, a no-win situation, a maze with no exit. His tragedy reminds us of the random character of fate: fulfilment of an ideal rnay not be much help in the real world, where foresight and good luck must walk with the successful man.

With certain notable exceptions, Sir Francis Bryan might have walked straight out of

Book 1 and Book II. His many talents embraced indoor and outdoor pursuits, and if his flamboyant style does not suggest gravità or mediocrità, his flair for self-promotion and witty remarks hint that sprezzatura might have been second nature to him, One of the minions, he was driven fiom the court for the offense of over-faniiliarity with the King, and unlike Carew, Bryan seems to have leamed little of discretion fiom his disgrace. The records mention subsequent occasions where he sacrificed tact for a "smart reply"4. So much for grazia. 105

Bryan's bluntness was well-known at court, and although Castiglione valued fiankness as a means to a noble end, Sir Thomas Wyatt thought it threatened Sir Francis' court career. In his Third Satire, dedicated to Bryan, Wyatt satirized The Courtier, casting Bryan in the role of the Castiglione's ideal, and concluded that although he might be immoral enough to suniive in the court jungle, his "honesty" would be the min of him4'. Bold as he may have been, al1 saw that Henry VIIi "doth well a~cept"'~his Eree and easy rnanner. If he used his "in" with the King for himself, he did not neglect his fiiends either, although he seenis to have known where to draw the lineJ7. Perhaps this squares with Castiglione's cautions about knowing your prince and reading his moods.

Bryan is almost the only fiiend of Henry's youth to have survived him while retaining his standing at court, no mean feat in itself, His reading of Henry's moods must have been masterful.

A search for Bryan's Book IV-style endeavours cornes up nearly empty. It is possible that his tentative support for Mary, about which he was questioned in 1536, might have been a feeler in that direction. If so, tliat interrogation probably frightened

him off. On the whole, however, one feels that sucli behaviour would have been

somewhat out of character, almost hypocritical; Bryan was a political animal who was

not over-nice about the means necessary to stay aligned with the King's policyJS:not the

man to risk his position for a principle. in the end, he seerns to have kept his place on the

strength of Book 1and Book II attributes, leavening their gloss with extensive survival

skills, leaving the goals of Book IV to the idealists.

In the real world of the early Tudor court, the goals of arnbitious courtiers could be departures from the Book IV ideal of public secvice:

For as Princes have Arts to govem Kingdomes, Courtiers have those by which they govern their Princes ...These Arts ... as doores and passages to the heart, are so guarded by their vigilancy, that they can both let themselves in, and keepe al1 others out ...49

Even allowing for this difference in priorities, Castiglione's recornmendations can apply

(more or less) to courtiers in varying settings, in Italy or in England, in a small court or a

large one. Wherk we ask, "How close did they corne? Did this help them at al]?', the

results are often surprising, and concIusions not so obvious as they first appear. Castiglione, 260.

' Starkey, "Castiglione", 164. ' Ibid., 164.

4 Starkey, "Intimacy and Innovation", 10 1.

' Ibid., 102.

Ibid., 79.

' Castiglione, 35-36,41-42. -L.P. 1,4468; M.K. Dale, "Sir Francis Bryan" in The House of Comrnons. 150% 1558 ed. S.T. Bindoff (London: Secker & Warburg, 1982), 1 : 527.

Y Castiglione, 57.

'"Starkey, "The Court", 235.

" -L.P. Addenda 1, i, 196.

''Starkey, Reign, 70.

l3 G.W.Bernard, "The Rise of Sir William Compton, Early Tudor Courtier" Enelish Historical Review 96(198 l), 755.

" Castiglione, 68, 7 1.

15 Byme, 1: 593; Sidney Lee, "Sir Francis Bryan" in Dictionary of National Biomaphy (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1908), 3: 152.

l6 Erickson, Great Hamy, 126.

l7 Dale, 528.

l8 Castiglione, 133.

19 Starkey, "Intimacy and Innovation", 107. -- 'O 'O !%h2ctiz? Giustiviur,, .sir Yezrs di îfic %~riui 'n'en~ -v 111 (i 5 i 5- iY i jl eci. and trans. Rawdon Brown (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1854), 1: 25. " Hall, 593.

'' Castiglione, !19.

'3 Ibid., 107.

'"tarkey, "The Court", 236.

" Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Life and Raimie of King Henry the Eieihth (London: Thomas Whitaker, 1649), 8. Wing Collection Hl507 reel 103.

'6 -L.P. XïD, i, 981 (2).

" Castiglione, 261

Madeleine Hope Dodds and Ruth Dodds, The Pil~rimageof Grace 1536- 1537 and the Exeter Conspiracv. 1538 (London: Frank Cass & Co., 1971), 1: 353.

29 Castiglione, 1 12-1 13.

30 Bernard, 757.

3' Starkey, "Intimacy and Innovation", 91.

" Bernard, 777.

'' Erickson, Great Haq, 105.

'' Thomas Fuller, The Worthies of Enaland ed. John Freeman (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1952), 548.

35 Alan Young, Tudor and Jacobean Toumaments (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Sheridan House, 1987), 43.

36 James Gairdner, "Sir Nicholas Carew" in Dictionary of National Biograph~ (London: Smith, Elder & Co, 1908), 3: 967,

37 Hall, 597,

3s Castiglione, 261

39 TI.:> 1- înn -+or luru., IL, JUU-JVl. "O Ibid., 109.

" -L.P. V, 1509.

" Eric Ives, "The Fa11 of Anne Boleyn Reconsidered" English Historical Review 107 (1 992), 653.

Norah Lofts, Anne Bolevn (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1979), 145-146.

" Giustinian, 1: 28; L.P. X, 908.

" Starkey, "The Court", 237-238. Even if Bryan knew of Castiglione's guidelines, it probably doesn't impact on our analysis, since the Courtier was published, in Italian, in 1528. By this time, Bryan had been at court for many years, and in fact had fulfilled many of Castiglione's requirernents.

J6 -L.P. XID, i, 981 (2).

" Byrne, II: 339.

Lee, 15 1; Erickson, Great Haq, 105.

J9 Herbert, 33. Conclusion

In crafting his ideal, Castiglione heaped abilities and virtues upon his Courtier without stint. The result was a multi-faceted, elegantly crafied model, capable of adjusting himself to any social situation and of using his extraordinary talents to bcnefit his society. Among the qualities Castiglione bestowed on his Courtier, however, there is a glaring omission: a political instinct, an ability to read, not just the moods of one's prince, but the trends of one's environment. in the intensely competitive, politically turbulent white water of the early modern court, the successfÙl man watched the eddies and currents of intrigue, and steered his course accordingly, using his prince as a Iodestar.

Two of our four men, for different reasons, allowed themselves to stray fiom this patli, and paid a high price for their straying: both Carew and Norris died on the scaffold, for principle, perhaps for chivalry. Bad luck played its part in both their stories, but the most obvious fault of both was the failure to use the politicai wisdom that each had accumulated (and exercised) over lengthy court careers. Compton and Bryan, by contrast, are our suntivors. Advancement of career took precedence over high-sounding ideals of honour, and for both the rneans to that end was the favour of Henry VIII. For

Castiglione's courtier, princeIy favour was to be used for the good of society; for these two men, the King was the well at which their fortunes drank. Neither set public service on a pedestal.

The theories of 11 Libro del Corte~iano,if applied, could have had a certain bearing II 1 on success at court, both at the entry levef in wiming royal favour and, later, in maintainhg one's place in the pecking order. The power-centred, politically-charged nature of the Tudor court, however, rneant that outside factors would always be in play and could never be discounted. Abilities alone were not enough, as many of the leading lights of Henry Vm's court were what the modem world calls "Renaissance men": polymaths as much at home with a pen in the hand as with a lance. The fact that not al1 of their stories ended happily brings us to the concIusion that in the hard-headed reality of court life, the survivors would be those who hid a political "sixth sense" beneath their finery. Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Amyot, Thomas (ed.). "A Mernorial fiom George Constantyne to Thomas Lord Cromwell" in Archaeolo~ia:or. Miscellaneous Tracts Relatine to Antiquity (vol. 23). London: Society of Antiquaries, 1830, p. 50-78

Bryan, Sir Francis. A Dismaise of the Life of the Courtier and a Commendation of the Life of the Laboilring Maq (1548). London: R. Grafton, 1548. Short Title Catalogue 12431 r. 50 (Pollard, A.W. and G.R. Redgrave (eds.) Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed in Endand. Scotland and Ireland and of Endish Books Printed Abroad, 1475-1640. London: Bibliographical Society, 1976). British Library Ref C38 c 52

Byrne, Muriel St. Clare. The Lisle Letters. 6 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier. trans. Sir Thomas Hoby. London: David Nutt, 1900.

Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier. trans. Sir Thomas Hoby. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1966. This is the edition used in my research.

Cavendish, George. "The Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey" in Two Earlv Tudor Lives ed. Richard S. Sylvester and Davis P. Harding. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962.

Ellis, H. Original Letters Illustrative of English History (ln series). 3 vols. London: William Dawson & Son, 1969.

Eltham Ordinances (1 526). London: Society of Antiquaries, 1790.

Gairdner, J., J.S. Brewer, and R.H. Brodie (eds.). Letters and Papers. Foreign and Domestic, of the Reim of Hen- VlTi. 1509-1 547. 21 vols and Appendix. London: Longman & Cu., 1862-1932.

Giustinian, Sebastian. Four Years at the Court of Henry VIII (1 5 15- 15 19). 2 vols. Ed. and trans. Rawdon Brown. London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1854.

Tiie Statutes of the Realm. 9 vols. and indices. London: Dawsons of Pal1 Mall, 1963. Vergil, Polydore. Anglica Historia (1485- 1537). Camden Series Vol LXXIV. ed. and tram Denys Huy. London: Royal Historical Society, 1950.

Secondary Sources:

Anglo, Sydney. S~ectacle.Pageanty and Early Tudor Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

AngIo, Sydney. "The Courtier: The Renaissance and Changing Ideals" in The Courts of Europe: Politics. Patronage and Rovalv. 1400-1800 ed. A.G. Dickens. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.

Archbold, W.A.J. "Henry Norris" in Dictionary of National Biography ed. Sidney Lee. Vol 14, 566-567. London: Smith, EIder & Co., 1908.

Bernard, G.W."The Rise of Sir William Compton, Early Tudor Courtier" English Historical Review 96(195 I), 754-777.

Bernard, G.W."The FaIl of Anne Boleyn" Enalish Historical Review 10611 991), 584- 610.

Bernard, G.W. "The Fa11 of Anne Boleyn: A Rejoinder" Enplish Historical Review 10711992), 665-674.

BertelIi, Sergio, Franco Cardini, and EIvira Garbero Zorzi (eds.). The Courts of the Italian Renaissance. New York: Facts on File Publications, 1986.

Bindoff, S.T. Tudor Ennland. London: Pelican Books, 1950.

Bindoff, S.T. "Sir Nicholas Carew" in The House of Comrnons. 1509- 1558 ed. S.T. Bindoff. Vol 1, 575-578. London: Secker & Warburg, 1983.

Braddock, Robert C. "The Rewards of Office-Holding in Tudor England" Journal of British Studies 14:2(1975), 29-47.

Brock, R.E. "The Courtier in Early Tudor Society, Illustrated fiom Select Examples". Unpublished Ph.D. thesis (üniversity of London), 1963.

Brodie, R.H. "Sir William Compton" in Dictionary of National Bio~raphved. Sidney Lee. Vol 4, 908-909. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1908.

A-* Bruce, iviarit: Louise. Anne Eoievn. London: Pan Booksy1 Y IL. Burton, Elizabeth. The Earl~Tudors at Home. 1485-1558. London: Penguin Books, 1976.

Camicelli, D.D. "Castiglione's Book of the Courtier" Oueen's Ouarterly 86(1979-80>, 574-588.

Cartwright, Julia. The Perfect Courtier. Baldassare Casti~lione:His Life and Letters. 1478- 1529. 2 vols. New York: Dutton and Co., 1927.

Chamberlin, Frederick. The Private Character of Henry VIII. New York: Ives Washburn, 193 1.

Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923.

Clifford, Henry. The Life of Jane Donner. Duchess of Feria. Ed. Joseph Stevenson. London: Burns and Oates, 1887.

Clough, Cecil H. "The Relations Behveen the English and Urbino Courts, 1474- 1508" Studies in the Renaissance XIV (1 967), 202-2 18.

Clough, Cecil H. "Francis 1 and the Courtiers of Castiglione's Courtier" Euro~ean Studies Review VIIi(I978), 23-70,

Clough, Cecil H. The Duchy of Urbino in the Renaissance. London: Variorum Reprints, 1981.

Dale, M.K. "Sir Francis Bryan" in The House of Commons. 1509-1558 ed. S.T. Bindoff. Vol 1,527-529. London: Secker & Warburg, 1982.

Dodds, Madeleine Hope and Ruth Dodds. The Pilmimage of Grace 1536-1537 and The Exeter Conspiracy. 1538. 2 vols. London: Frank Cass & Co,, 197 1.

Durant, Horatia. Sorrowful Captives: The Tudor Earls of Devon. Pontypol: The Grifin Press, 1960.

Dutton, Ralph. En~lishCourt Life: fiom Henry VII to Geor~eil. London: B.T. Batsford, 1963.

Dyce, Alexander (ed.). The Poetical Works of John Skelton. 2 vols. New York: AMS Press, 1965. Elias, Norbert (tram. Edrnund Jephcott). The Court Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.

Elton, G.R. The Tudor Revolution in Govemment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Elton, G.R. "Henry Vm" in The Historical Association Book of the Tudors ed. J. Hurstfield. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1973.

Elton, G.R. "Tudor Govemrnent: The Points of Contact, III: The Court" Transactions of the Roval Historical Society (1976), 21 1-228.

Elton, G.R. Reform and Reformation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Elton, G.R. "Tudor Government" (reviews Starkey's The Enelish Court) The Historical Journal 32:2(1988), 425-434.

Erickson, Carolly. BIoodv Mary. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978.

Erickson, CaroIly. Great Ha-: The Extravagant Life of Hen~VIII. New York: Summit Books, 1980.

Erickson, Carolly. Mistress Anne: The Exceptional Life of Anne Bolevn. New York: Sumrnit Books, 1984.

Foxwell, A.K. The Poems of Sir Thomas Wvatt. New York: Russell & Russell, 1964.

Fraser, Antonia. The Wives of Henry VITI. New York: Alfred A. ffiopf, 1992.

Friedmann, Paul. Anne Boleyn: A Chapter of Enalish Historv. 1527-1 536. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1884.

Froude, James Anthony. The History of England from the Fa11 of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth. 12 vols. New York: AMS Press, 1967.

Fuller, Thomas. The Worthies of England. ed. John Freeman. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1952.

Gairdner, James. "Sir Nicholas Carew" in Dictionaq of National Biomaphv ed. Sidney Lee. Vol 3,965-968. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1908.

Givz~-W!scn,Cb~rk. R; Ryr'a: ITt)i~ihi);l;.anri iiic King's HEnirv: Service, Politics and Finance in Endand. 1360-1413. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Gunn, Steven. "Tournaments and Early Tudor Chivalry" Historv Today 4 1(June 199 l), 15-21.

Hale, John R. Renaissance. New York: Time Incorporated, 1965.

Hall, Edward. The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre and Yorke. New York: AMS Press, 1965.

Lord Herbert of Cherbury. The Life and Rai-e of Kine Henry the Eiahth (1649) (microfilm holdings at üNB) 1870 ed. White Kennett.

Hinde, Thomas. Courtiers: Nine Hundred Years of Court Life. London: Victor GoIlancz, 1986.

Hoak, Dale E. "The King's Privy Chamber, 1547-1553" in Tudor Rule and Revolution ed. Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

HoIinshed, Raphael. Chronicles of Endand, ScotIand. and Ireland. 6 vols. New York: AMS Press, 1965.

Hopkins, Lisa. Queen Elizabeth and Her Court. London: Vision Press, 1990.

Ives, Eric. "Faction at the Court of Henry VüI: The Fall of Anne Boleyn" Histoq 57: 190(June 1972), 160-188.

Ives, Eric. Faction in Tudor England. London: The Historical Association, 1979.

Ives, Eric. Anne Boleyn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Ives, Eric. "The Fa11 of Anne Boleyn Reconsidered Endish Historical Review 107(1992), 65 1-664.

Javitch, Daniel. "II Cortegiano and the Constraints of Despotism" in Castiglione: The IdeaI and the Real in Renaissance Culture cd. Robert W. Hanning and David Rosand. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.

Johnson, S.R. "Sir Nicholas Carew" in The House of Comrnons. 1509-1558 ed. S.T. Bindoff. Vol 1,575-578,London: Secker and Warburg, 1982.

KeIso, Ruth. The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth Centuq. V!xcs?er, ?.CA.: Pskr Sirii'uti, l964. Koenigsberger, H.G. "Republics and Courts in Italian and European Culture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries" Past and Present 83(May 1979), 32-56.

Lander, J.R. Crown and Ncbility. 1450-1509. London: Edward Arnold, 1976.

Lee, Sidney. "Sir Francis Bryan" in Dictiona~of National Biomaphy ed. Sidney Lee. Vol 3, 150-1 52. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1908.

Lehmberg, Stanford E. "Parliarnentary Attainder in the Reign of Henry Vm" Historical Journal XVIII, 4(1975), 675-702.

Loades, David. The Tudor Court. Totowa, N.J.: Bames & Noble, 1987.

Loades, David (ed.). Chronicles of the Tudor Kin-S. New York: Viking Penguin, 1990.

Lofts, Norah. Anne Bolevn. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1979,

MacCafüey, Wallace. "Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Politics" in Elizabethan Government and Society: Essavs Presented to Sir John Neale ed. S.T. Bindoff, J. Hurstfield, and C.H. Williams. London: The Athlone Press, 1961.

Mathcw, David. The Courtiers of Henry VTn. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1970.

Mertes, Kate. The En~lishNoble Household. 1250-1000: Good Governance and Politic -Rule. Oxford: Basil Blaçkwell, 1988.

Michell, Ronald. The Carews of Beddington. London: London Borough of Sutton Libraries and Arts Services, 198 1.

Miller, Helen. Henry VITI and the Endish Nobilitv. Oxford: Basil BlackweII, 1986.

Morgan, D.A.L. "The King's Affinity in the Polity of Yorkist England" in Transactions of the Roval Histoncal Society 5''' series vo1.23(1973), 1-25.

MuHin, Janet E. "Ln Attendance on His Grace: The Privy Chamber under Henry Vm" unpubiished essay for History 6205 (UNB), 1995.

Mumby, Frank Arthur. aie~outhVIX: A Narrative in Contemuorary Letters. London: Constable & Co., 1913.

Myers, A.R. The Household of Edward IV: The Black Book and the Ordinance of 1478. Mmrhe~ter:The TuT~i.;cïsity I%CSS, :W. Myers, A.R. Crown. Household and Parliament in Fifieenth-Century Endand. London: The Harnbledon Press, 1985.

Newton, A.P. "The King's Chamber Under the Early Tudors" Endish Historical Review 32(JuIy 1917), 348-372.

Newton, A*P. "Tudor Reforms in the Royal Household" in Tudor Studies ed. R. Seton- Watson. New York: Russell & Russell, 1924.

The Oxford English Dictionay. 20 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Pollard, A.F. An English Garner: Tudor Tracts. 1532- 1588. Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1903).

Pollard, A.F. The History of Eneland from the Accession of Edward VI to the Death of Elizabeth (1 547-1 603). New York: Greenwood Press, 1969.

Prescott, Orville. Princes of the Renaissance. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969.

Raleigh, Walter. "Introduction", The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione. London: David Nutt, 1900.

Rebhorn, Wayne A. Courtly Performances: Masking and Festivity in Castiglione's "Book of the Courtier". Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1978.

Raeder, Ralph. The Man of the Renaissance: Four Lawnivers: Savonarola. Machiavelli. Castiglione. Aretino. Fairfield: Augustus M. Kelley, 1977.

Rouse, W.H.D. "introduction". The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1966.

Rowse, A.L. Court and Count~:Studies in Tudor Social History. Athens, GA: the University of Georgia Press, 1987.

Russell, Joycelyne G. The Field of Cloth of Gold: Men and Manners in 1520. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969.

Ryan, Lawrence V. "Book Four of Castiglione's Courtier: Climax or Aîterthought?" Studies in the Renaissance XIX(1972), 156-179.

Scarisbrick, J.J. Henry Vm. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. Schenk, Wilhelm. "The 'Cortegiano' and the Civilization of the Renaissance" Scrutiny 16(1949), 93-103.

Sessions, William. '"Enough Survives': The Earl of Surrey and European Court Culture" History Today 41(June 1991), 48-54.

Shephard, Robert. "Court Factions in Early Modern England" (review article) Journal of Modem History 64(Dec 1W), 72 1-745.

Slavin, A.J. Politics and Profit: A Studv of Sir Rabh Sadler. 1507-1 547. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Smith, Lacey Baldwin. "English Treason Trials and Confessions in the Sixteenth Century" Journal of the History of Ideas XV(0ctober 1954), 47 1-498.

Smith, Lacey Baldwin. A Tudor Tragedv: The Life and Times of Catherine Howard. London: Jonathan Cape, 196 1.

Smith, Lacey Baldwin. "The Last Will and Testament of Herq Vm: a Question of Perspective" Journal of British Studies 2: l(Nov 1962), 14-27.

Smith, Lacey Baldwin. Henry ViII: The Mask of Royalty. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 1982.

SouthaIl, Raymond. The Courtlv Maker. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964.

Starkey, David. "The King's Privy Chamber, 1485-1547". Unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Cambridge), 1973.

Starkey, David. "Representation Through Intimacy" in Svmbols and Sentiments: Cross- Cultiiral Studies in Svmbolism ed. Ioan Lewis. London: Academic Press, 1977.

Starkey, David. "The Age of the Household: Politics, Society and the Arts c. 1350- c.1550" in The Later Middle Ages ed. Stephen Medcalf. London: Methuen and Co,, 1981.

Starkey, David. "The Court: Castiglione's Ideal and Tudor Reality" Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XLV:45(1982), 232-239.

Starkey, David. The Reign of Henry Vm: Personalities and Politics. London: George Philip, 1985. Starkey, David. "Court and Govemrnent" in Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the History of Tudor Govemment and Administration ed. C. Coleman and David Starkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Starkey, David. "Introduction: Court History in Perspective" in The English Court: fiom the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War ed. David Starkey. London: Longman Group, 1987.

Starkey, David. "Lntimacy and Innovation: the rise of the Privy Chamber, 1485- 1547" in The En~lishCourt: fiorn the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War ed. David Starkey. London: Longman Group, t 987.

Starkey, David. "A Reply: Tudor Govemment: The Facts?" The Historical Journal 3 1:4( l988), 92 1-93 1. (Answers Elton's review of The English Court)

Starkey, David. "Castiglione at the Court of Henry Vm: Was There a Renaissance Court After All?" in Reformation. Humanism. and "Revolution" ed. Gordon Schochet. Washington: The Folger institute, 1990.

Starkey, David (ed.). Rivals in Power: Life and Letters of the Great Tudor Dynasties. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990.

Starkey, David. "Destruction and Renewal: An Introduction to Henry VIII" History Todav 4 1(June 1991 ), 5-9.

Starkey, David. "Court, Council, and Nobility in Tudor England" in Princes. Patronage and the Nobilitv: The Court at the Beginnine; of the Modem Age c. 1450-1650 ed. Ronald G. Asch and Adolf M. Birke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Streitberger, W.R. Court Revels 1485- 1559. Toroiito: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Strong, Roy. Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450-1650. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1984.

Thomson, Patria. Sir Thomas Wvatt and his Backmound. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964.

Thurley, Simon. "Palaces for a Nouveau Riche King" History Todav 41 (June 199 l), 10- 14.

TL....-1--. O:--- v-- n 11~~~~~,JIIIIUII. IIK nuyi Faiaces of Tuaor bndand: Architecture and Court Life, 1460-1 547. London: Yale University Press, 1993. Walker, Greg. "The 'Expulsion of the Minions' of 15 19 Reconsidered" The Historical Journal 32: l(l989), 1-16,

Walker, Greg. Play of Persuasion: Drama and Politics at the Court of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199 1.

Wall, Thomas. The Voyaee of Sir Nicholas Carewe to the Emperor Charles V in the Year 1529 ed. R.J. Knecht. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Wamicke, Retha M. "The Fa11 of Anne Boleyn: A Reassessment" History LXX (i 985), 1-15.

Warnicke, Retha M. The Rise and Fa11 of Anne Bolevn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry Vm. London: Pimlico, 1991.

White, John S. Renaissance Cavalier. New York: PhilosophicaI Library, 1959,

Williams, Neville. Henry VITI and His Court. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971.

Williams, Neville. AI1 the Queen's Men: Elizabeth 1 and Her Courtiers. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972.

WiIliams, Neville. "The Tudors: Three Contrasts in Personality" in The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Rovalt~,1400-1 800 ed. A.G. Dickens. London: Thames and Hudson, 1977.

WiIliams, Penry and G.L. Harriss. "A Revotution in Tudor History?" Past and Present 2S(July l963), 3-58.

Williams, Penry. Life in Tudor Endand. London: B.T. Batsford, 1964.

WiIliarns, Penry. The Tudor Re~ime.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Woodhouse, J.R. Baldesar Castiglione: A Reassessment of "The Courtier", Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1978.

Young, Alan. Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Sheridan House, 1987. Young, Ruth Elizabeth. "htroduction to Castiglione and his Courtier" Smith College Studies in Modem Langua~es2 l(I939-40), 240-257.