earl of arundel

anonymous asked:

Hello is it true that Elizabeth called Richard her "only joy in the world?"

I believe that is a line out of The Buck Letter.  The Buck Letter is considered a document which cannot be relied upon, because it’s origins and the circumstances of it’s writing cannot be verified.

The Buck Letter was a supposed copy of a letter from Elizabeth of York to the Duke of Norfolk.  The original letter itself has long since been lost, but George Buck, an antiquarian of King James 1 claims to have seen the letter in the private collection of the Earl of Arundel (probably sometime around 1600).  Buck copied down the letter from memory, which doesn’t seem all that reliable.

George Buck’s copy of the letter survived long after the original was gone, however Buck’s letter sustained major damage from a fire during the 18th C, and parts of it are missing or illegible.

Here is what we have left of George Buck’s copy from memory of Elizabeth of York’s letter:

“…st she thanked him for his many Curtesies and friendly
…as before…
in the cause of…
and then she prayed him to be a mediator for her to the K…
ge who (as she wrote) was her onely joy and maker in…
Worlde, and that she was his…harte, in thoughts, in…and in all, and then she intimated that the better halfe of Ffe…was paste, and that she feared the Queene would neu.…”

Not exactly the evidence you want to be relying on to support the widely discredited theory that Elizabeth of York had romantic feelings for her uncle, eh?

From this George Buck’s great nephew (also, confusingly, called George Buck) attempted to reconstruct his great uncle’s copy of the letter.  We aren’t sure what enabled him to make this reconstruction of the letter, had he seen or copied his great uncle’s letter prior to the fire damage?  That’s not able to be answered.

In short, my answer to your question is, I don’t know if Elizabeth of York ever referred to her uncle that way, but the evidence we have that she did is extremely unreliable.

Thank you for the ask.

Birth of Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales

Arthur Tudor, the eldest son of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, was born on 20th September 1486 at St. Swithun’s Priory in Winchester. His birth cemented the union between the House of Tudor and the House of York, and the event was celebrated throughout the whole kingdom.

Henry VII wanted his child and heir to be born in the place believed to have been the capital of the legendary Camelot. Arthur was named after Camelot’s heroic king, King Arthur.

Prince Arthur was viewed by contemporaries as the great hope of the newly established House of Tudor. Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, Margaret Beaufort, and other contemporaries hoped that his reign would be a golden age for England and the Tudor dynasty.

Arthur Tudor became the Duke of Cornwall at birth. Four days after his birth, he was baptized at Winchester Cathedral by the Bishop of Worcester, John Alcock. John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, William FitzAlan, 16th Earl of Arundel, Queen Elizabeth Woodville, and Cecily of York served as godparents; the latter two carried the prince during the ceremony.

Arthur was created Prince of Wales in 1490. At age three, Arthur was created knight of the bath, and in 1491 made a knight of the garter.  Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII set up the Council of Wales and Marches for Arthur in Wales, in order to enforce royal authority there and to cement Arthur’s status as an heir to the throne of England; the council was headed by Jasper Tudor, the Duke of Bedford and the king’s uncle.

As all bright hopes of England and the nation rested on Arthur, he was given impeccable and rigorous education, first under his chaplain, John Rede, and later with the poet laureate, Bernard André, who praised his mastery of the Latin and Greek authors. Sir Henry Vernon was governor and treasurer to Prince Arthur. He seemed to have been a clever child.

The historical tradition is that Arthur never was a strong child, although there is no proof of that; he might have been not as robust as his younger brother Henry, the Duke of York (the future King Henry VIII), but he was still strong enough and is believed to have developed some aptitude to archery. Arthur’s strength was not in his athletics but in his intelligence and education. 

Arthur was described by some contemporaries as a handsome young man with the typical Tudor reddish hair and a high-bridged nose, a delicate and gentle man, but I don’t think that “delicate” means “sickly” and “weak”. Most likely, he was delicate in his manners and character.

Negotiations about Arthur’s marriage to Katherine of Aragon began when the boy was two and were finalized in the Treaty of Medina del Campo in 1498. According to the treaty, Arthur and Catherine were supposed to marry as soon as they reached canonical age. 

It was a mutually beneficial marriage: for Ferdinand and Isabella, Catherine’s marriage to the English heir could secure England’s alliance against France, while Henry would have benefited from an international alliance with Spain and gained official international recognition of the Tudor dynasty.

In 1499, a marriage by proxy took place at Arthur’s Tickenhill Manor in Bewdley, near Worcester. On that day, Arthur allegedly said to the Spanish Ambassador that:

“He much rejoiced to contract the marriage because of his deep and sincere love for the Princess”.

Catherine and Arthur wrote each other letters. In a letter from October 1499, Arthur referred to his future bride as “my dearest spouse”, and in the same letter he wrote:

“I cannot tell you what an earnest desire I feel to see your Highness, and how vexatious to me is this procrastination about your coming. Let [it] be hastened, [that] the love conceived between us and the wished-for joys may reap their proper fruit.”

Catherine finally came to England on 2 October 1501, at Plymouth. On 4th November 1501, the couple met each other for the first time at Dogmersfield in Hampshire. They seemed to have liked one other because the prince wrote to Catherine’s parents later that he would be “a true and loving husband”

When the royal procession reached the city of London, everybody was already expecting their arrival: crowds of people gathered in the streets, church bells were ringing, and banners were hanging from windows. Everything was ready for the magnificent wedding ceremony.

On 14th November 1501, the marriage ceremony took place at Saint Paul’s Cathedral. Wearing a luxurious white gown, the young Spanish princess was received at the Galilee porch at the west end by a fanfare of trumpeters and passed down the nave, heading to the waiting Arthur. 

The ceremony was conducted by Henry Deane, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was assisted by the Spanish Legate and nineteen bishops and mitred abbots. The wedding feast took place at the Baynard’s Castle, where the young Prince Henry led her for a banquet there and was by her side.

Arthur and Catherine left London and headed for Wales in a month after their wedding, where they established their household at Ludlow Castle. On 2nd Apr 1502, Arthur suddenly died, to the great grief of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The theories of Arthur’s death include consumption, sweating sickness, testicular cancer, and pneumonia. We don’t know the true reason of his death.

On 25th April 1502, Arthur’s body was taken to Worcester Cathedral via the River Severn, in a "special wagon upholstered in black and drawn by six horses, also caprisoned in black”. As was customary, Catherine didn’t attend the funeral. The Earl of Surrey acted as chief mourner. 

Arthur’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon seemed to have had an insignificant and short-lived historical development until King Henry VIII, Arthur’s elder brother, decided to divorce from Catherine to marry Anne Boleyn, when the validity of their marriage was questioned. The majority of mainstream historians believe that Catherine’s first marriage wasn’t consummated, but there is a chance that consummation actually happened.

Some time ago, I wrote a long post “Catherine of Aragon: the true wife of King Henry VIII?” Here I don’t want to speculate about Catherine’s relationship with Arthur. The link to the said post is here.

Sources:

King Henry VIII. The King and his court, Alison Weir

Catherine of Aragon: Henry’s Spanish Queen, Giles Tremlett

6

Queens of England + Adeliza of Louvain (1103-1151)

Adeliza of Louvain was born in 1105 in Louvain, present-day Belgium. She was renowned for her beauty, reflected in the epithet ‘the fair maiden of Brabant.’Her father was Godfrey I, Count of Louvain (1095-1139), Landgrave of Brabant, and Duke of Lower Lotharingia (1106-1128), an ally of Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor.

Plans for Adeliza’s marriage to Henry I of England, may have begun when she was as young as sixteen, even before Henry’s only legitimate son, William Adelin, died on 25 November 1120 in the White Ship disaster. However, Henry’s need for a new male heir expedited the marriage plans and the couple wed on 24 January 1121. Apparently in addition to her beauty, Henry was also attracted to Adeliza as a wife because she was a descendant of Charlemagne.

Unlike Henry’s first wife Matilda, Adeliza appears to have played a very passive role in the administration of the kingdom. While Matilda issued some thirty-one charters and writs during her queenship, during Adeliza’s fifteen-year marriage to Henry I she issued one, and she only attested 13 of Henry’s many charters, even though they were almost always together.

Despite her limited involvement in politics, Adeliza seems to have played an active role as a patron of the arts and literature, and was influential in fostering the rise of French poetry in the English court. While English queens had been traditionally associated with artistic patronage for decades, and a number of them, including Edith of Wessex, Emma of Normandy and Matilda, had financed a number of works in different media, Adeliza primarily sponsored books written in French.

When Henry died on 1 December 1135, Adeliza retired temporarily to the Benedictine convent of Wilton Abbey, near Salisbury. She was present at the dedication of Henry’s tomb at Reading Abbey on the first anniversary of his death. At about that time, she founded a leper hospital dedicated to Saint Giles at Fugglestone St Peter, Wiltshire.

In 1138, three years after Henry I’s death, Adeliza married William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel, one of Henry I’s advisors, and son of Guillaume d’Aubigny and Maud le Bigod. Together, they lived at her castle of Arundel on the Sussex coast and had seven children. (x)

Appearance & Likeness

“By the time of her coronation in 1533, one hostile observer would be reporting to the court at Brussels that Anne’s crown did not fit, and she was badly disfigured by a wart, and that she wore a violet velvet mantle with a high ruff to conceal a swelling in the neck, possibly a goitre. Some writers have taken this seriously, although much of it is wilful misrepresentation. The crown was quickly taken off her after the actual crowning, but this was because it weighed seven pounds. For the rest of the ceremonies Anne wore a crown specifically made and weighing only three…As for the high collar, Anne wore the required coronation surcoat with a mantle of ermine, although the material seems to have been purple velvet and not white cloth of gold. If the style was the same as the surcoat and mantle her daughter wore at her coronation in 1559, then the neck was high. The need to conceal a goitre is malevolent embroidery.

“George Wyatt, writing at the end of the century to contradict Sander, and having access to some genuine family traditions of his own about Anne, was compelled not only to accept her ‘beauty not so whitely as clear and fresh, above all we may esteem’, but to admit that

…there was found, indeed, upon the side of her nail, upon one of her fingers, some little show of a nail, which yet was so small, by the report of those that have seen her, as the work master seemed to leave it on occasion of greater grace to her hand, which, with the tip of one of her other fingers might be, and and was usually hidden without any blemish to it. Likewise there were said to be upon some parts of her body, certain moles incident to the clearest complexions.

A minor malformation of one fingertip thus seems very probably, and so too one or two moles, possibly on the chin…”

…not that she was ever a ravishing beauty. Lancelot de Carles did call her ‘beautiful and with an elegant figure’, and a Venetian reporting what was known of her in Paris in 1928 described her as ‘very beautiful’. Yet John Barlow, one of her favorite clerics, when asked to compare Anne to Elizabeth Blount…replied that Elizabeth ‘was more beautiful’, although Anne ‘was very eloquent and gracious and reasonably good looking’. Simon Grynee, a professor of Greek at Basle whom Henry VIII employed to canvass Swiss opinion as to the validity of his marriage to Katherine, was similarly cautious (and also not entirely persuaded to her morals): ‘young and good-looking’ was his verdict. The Venetian diplomat, Francesco Sanuto, was even less certain, though he clearly knew of no goitres or ‘large wens’: ‘Not one of the handsomest women in the world; she is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, a bosom not much raised and eyes which are black and beautiful’. Henry, as we shall see, saw nothing wrong with Anne’s breasts, but the overall evidence of these less prejudiced observers hardly suggests compelling physical attractiveness. All reports agree that Anne was dark…when her daughter Elizabeth was born it was remarked how fair she was, taking after her father rather than her mother. A feature of which Anne herself was clearly proud of was her hair. A good deal of comment was caused by her wearing her hair down for the coronation procession through London, but again this was simply in accordance with established etiquette. Anne, however, had also worn her hair down for the entirely unprecedented ceremony where she was created marchioness of Pembroke.

“Looks only tolerable, but a splendid head of dark hair and fine eyes – this was the impression Anne Boleyn made on her contemporaries, but it would be good to have some pictorial evidence. Here the past has not been kind. The painter coming into prominence at the English court was, of course, Hans Holbein the younger, but no painting of Anne by Holbein is known to have been made, and certainly none has survived. Two of his drawings are alleged to be of her: one in the set of his drawings in the royal collection at Windsor and the other formerly at Weston Park and now in the British Museum. The Windsor drawing carries the legend ‘Anna Bollein Queen’ in eighteenth-century lettering; the Weston Park drawing, in a hand dating from the first half of the seventeenth century, has the Latin legend: ‘Anne Bullen was beheaded, London 19 May, 1536′. The names on the Holbein drawings at Windsor are said to have derived originally from Sir John Cheke, Edward VI’s tutor, and since Cheke had known Anne, the identification might appear to have authority. However, the Cheke story is suspect – several of his supposed identifications are demonstrably incorrect – and there is evidence on the ‘Anna Bollein’ to link it with the Wyatt family. Moreover, the sitter is in evident deshabille, and why should any such likeness of the queen be commissioned? It is also the case that when both Holbeins were in the collection of the earl of Arundel int he late 1630s, the Czech artist, Wenceslaus Hollar, chose to engrave the British Museum drawing in preference to the one now at Windsor. Why Hollar selected that as likeness of Anne it is impossible to say; either he had advice or the Windsor drawing had not yet been claimed as ‘Anne’.

“One firm contemporary likeness of Anne Boleyn is a single specimen of the portrait medal struck in 1534; it carries her motto, ‘The Moost Happi’ and the initials ‘AR’ – Anna Regina. Such a piece can only have been prepared on royal authority. The common assumption is that the medal was struck to mark Anne’s coronation, but the date makes that improbable. Between Anne’s coronation and a 25 March start to 1534 was ten months. The more likely occasion is the expected birth of Anne’s second child in the Autumn of 1534, and her miscarrying would explain why multiple copies do not survive. Unfortunately the nose has been badly damaged, perhaps deliberately, so that its value as a likeness is impaired. Nevertheless, the shake of the face is clear – long and oval with high cheekbones, much the sort of face that her daughter Elizabeth was to have, according to some painters. Given the condition of the medal, it is impossible to go further than that, but it cannot be said to inspire confidence in the British Museum likeness endorsed by Holler and still less the Windsor example. Judged by the medal, Anne sat for neither of the Holbein drawings. 

“A number of paintings from the later sixteenth century are claimed to be of Anne. They survive from sets of ‘Kings and Queens of England’ which Elizabethan and Jacobean gentry liked to have in their houses to demonstrate loyalty. There are two patterns which clearly represent separate traditions. The one best known at the time…depicts Anne in a gable hood with a single necklace of pearls and a cross decorated with rectangular stones. In a painting in this pattern…Anne wears a brooch in the form of a single drop pearl hanging from the monogram ‘AB’ in gold. The alternative pattern – and the one commonly reproduced today – has Anne in a French hood with a gold letter ‘B’ hanging from a pearl necklace. Several examples survive…Neither pattern, however, can be regarded as authoritative since neither is earlier than fifty or sixty years after Anne’s death or linked to the portrait medal, either directly or via a common ancestor. 

“There is, however, a resolution of this pictorial game of ‘find the lady’. The key is an Elizabethan ring belonging to the Trustees of Chequers…the ring itself is mother-of-pearl, the shank is set with rubies and the bezel carries the monogram ‘E’ in diamonds. It was previously in the posession of the Home family, having, it is said, been given from the English royal treasures by James I to the then Lord Horne. The head of the ring is hinged and opens to reveal two enamel portraits, one of Elizabeth circa 1575 and one of a woman in the costume of Henry VIII’s reign, wearing a French hood. The portrait is minute…but not only is Anne by far the most likely woman of the previous generation to be thus matched with Elizabeth, the face mask is quite clearly the sitter in the Hever and National Portrait Gallery printings. Two important conclusions follow. First, the late Elizabethan ‘Kings and Queens’ image of Anne is pushed back some twenty years. Even more significant, that image must have been accepted in Elizabeth’s court as a likeness of the queen’s mother. Elizabeth herself could obviously have had no clear recollection of Anne’s face, but others around her had known Henry’s second wife well. 

“How does the Chequers enamel compare with the 1534 medal? There is a forty-year interval between them and the head-dresses are different, but the sitter is evidently the same - long, oval face, high cheekbones, strong nose, and a decided chin: a face of character, not beauty. There is thus an authenticated sequence for Anne Boleyn, comprising the medal, the Chequers enamel, and the Hever/NPG pattern.

“With such a tiny ring it is hard to be certain, but between it and particularly the National Portrait Gallery example there seems to have been a prettying up and a loss of spirit. Fortunately, the sequence also has the effect of corroborating a seventeenth-century miniature in the collection of the Duke of Bucceleuch and Queensberry. Charles I had this copied as ‘Anne Boleyn’ by John Hoskins the elder…and it is now endorsed ‘from an ancient original’. How ‘ancient’ it is impossible to say. Although the relationship to the examples in the NPG pattern is evident, these were only thirty years old or perhaps less. It is more likely that Hoskins had access to an earlier image of the kind from which the NPG image originated. A full-length portrait of Anne was owned by Lord Lumley in 1590 and existed as late as 1773. Could it even be that Hoskins’ source was or was derived from a Holbein painting now lost? Speculation apart, the Hoskins is important because it preserves what a highly talented seventeenth-century miniaturist made of the image, and though again further softened, it is the best depiction of Anne we are likely ever to have, failing the discovery of new material. Portrait medal – Chequers ring – Hever/NPG pattern – Hoskins miniature: the chain is complete. We have the real Anne Boleyn.

“…Establishing a reliable image for Anne Boleyn only accentuates the evidence of contemporaries that her attraction was not outstanding natural beauty. What, then, explains her power? In the first place she radiated sex. The heir of Northumberland would try to break a six-year-old engagement for her; Sir Thomas would become passionately involved; and it was the inability of a Flemish musician to stand the heady atmosphere around her that would help bring Anne to destruction. As for Henry, the king’s own letters show how explicit was his desire…”

“That Anne was aware of her attractiveness to men seems obvious. While in France her place beside the retiring queen would have kept her away from most of the notorious licentiousness which flourished in Francis I’s own household. Nevertheless, Anne cannot have been made aware of her power during such visits as Claude did make to a court which was much more explicitly erotic than those at London or Brussels…days after her death de Carles waxed lyrical about her expressive eyes…

“Yet sexuality was only part of Anne Boleyn’s attraction. What made her stand out was sophistication, elegance, and independence, in fact the continental experience and upbringing which we have explored…

“France and Queen Claude, and, one might add, Margaret of Austria: these had made the difference. There were other foreign ladies at the English court. Some, now aging, had come over with Katherine of Aragon, but among the English there was nobody with a tithe of the continental polish of Anne Boleyn. One of Wolsey’s servants who had known her remembered how she stood out among the other women at court for ‘her excellent grace and behavior’. A less than enthusiastic Protestant writer of the next generation told how’ albeit in beauty she was to many inferior, but for behavior, manners, attire, and tongue she excelled them all, for she had been brought up in France.’ A Catholic account of the same period stressed that ‘she was in the prime of her youth’, and as well as her musical abilities ‘had her Latin and French tongue’…Even the recusant tradition remembered her elegance and gave her credit for it, if for nothing else: ‘She was the model and the mirror of those who were at court, for she was always well dressed, and every day made some change in the fashion of her garments. But as to the disposition of her mind…’

“Anne Boleyn had style, and continental style at that. George Wyatt might look back and write of ‘the graces of nature graced by gracious education’, but Carles declared at the time: ‘no one would ever have taken her to be English by her manners, but a native-born Frenchwoman’.”

2

Queens consort of England - Adeliza of Louvain

Adeliza or Adelicia of Louvain was the daughter of Godfrey I, Count of Louvain, Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Landgrave of Brabant and Count of Louvain and Brussels and his wife Ida of Chiny, a descendant of the Emperor Charlemagne.

Known as ‘the fair maiden of Brabant’, Adeliza was renowned for her beauty, in his 'Historia Anglorum’ the chronicler Henry of Huntingdon refers to Adeliza’s beauty, “A jewel grows pale on you, a crown does not shine. Put adornment aside, for nature provides your adornment.”

When William the Atheling, the only legitimate son of King Henry I of England drowned in the sinking of the White Ship on 25 November 1120, Henry urgently needed a male heir to succeed to his throne. The fifty three year old King Henry took the seventeen year old Adelicia as his second wife on 24 January 1121. Henry I’s first wife, Matilda of Scotland, had died in 1118. Despite the reputation he had acquired for begetting illegitimate children, Henry’s marriage to his first queen had produced only two children, William the Atheling and a daughter Matilda, who had been sent to Germany to marry the Holy Roman Emperor as an eight year old child. After the death of her husband the Emperor, he recalled his daughter, by now known as the Empress, to England. Henry named her as his heiress and made the barons swear fealty to her.

Henry of Huntingdon recorded that the new queen accompanied Henry to London at Pentecost. The fifteen year marriage of Adelicia and Henry never produced children. Unlike Henry’s first wife Matilda, Adeliza appears to have played a very passive role. While Matilda issued some thirty-one charters and writs during her reign, during Adeliza’s fifteen-year marriage to Henry I she issued one, and she only attested 13 of Henry’s many charters, even though they were almost always together.

After the death of her husband the king on 1 December 1135, the throne was usurped by his nephew Stephen of Blois. Adeliza retired to the Benedictine convent of Wilton Abbey, near Salisbury. She attended the dedication of Henry’s tomb at Reading Abbey on the first anniversary of his death. At about that time, she founded a leper hospital dedicated to Saint Giles at Fugglestone St Peter, Wiltshire. On the first anniversary of Henry I’s death, Adeliza give the manor of Aston to the Abbey of Reading, and endowed them with lands “to provide for the convent and other religious pweaona [sic] coming to the abbey on the occasion of the anniversary of my lord King Henry.” She also added the gift of a church a few years later.

Henry I provided generously for his widow, she was given the revenues of Rutland, Shropshire and a large district of London, with possession of the city of Chichester. Henry also gave the manor of Aston to Adeliza “as his queen and wife.” Landholdings that were part of Adeliza of Louvain’s dower include Waltham in Essex, an estate in south-east England, with areas in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, and Middlesex. She had property in Devon. As a gift from Henry I, she was given a property in Ashleworth, a component of the royal estate of Berkley. In 1126 the whole county of Shropshire was given to her.

Three years after Henry I’s death, in 1138, Adeliza married for a second time to William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel, the son of William d'Aubigny and Maud le Bigod. The D'Aubigny’s were royal stewards and held an important position at court. The couple lived at Adelicia’s castle of Arundel on the Norfolk coast. Although there were no children from her first marriage Adeliza presented her second husband with seven children, Alice, William, Olivia, Reynor, Geoffrey, Henry, and Agatha d’ Aubigny. Adeliza and William’s descendants include Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, the second and fifth queens of Henry VIII. The descendants of Adeliza and William still own Castle Rising and Arundel Castle to the present day.

England was plunged into a bloody Civil War when Matilda, the daughter and appointed heir of Henry I, challenged her cousin Stephen for the throne. Adeliza received her step-daughter at her home in Arundel, along with Matilda’s illegitimate half-brother Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester, the chief supporter of her cause, in defiance of her husband’s wishes, William d'Aubigny was a staunch supporter of Stephen.

She later betrayed them both and handed them over to King Stephen, John of Worcester recorded that “she feared the king’s majesty and worried that she might lose the great estate she held throughout England.” He also mentions Adeliza’s attempts to pacify King Stephen, “she swore on oath that his enemies had not come to England on her account but that she had simply given them hospitality as persons of high dignity once close to her.”

In 1150, Adeliza left William d'Aubigny to enter the monastery of Afflighem in Flanders. One of her brothers was also living at the monastery. The annals at the monastery mention her death, which occurred in 1151, and her place of burial site is not known with certainty. Some traditions imply she was buried at the monastery of Afflighem, however a donation made by her brother Joscelin of Louvain to Reading Abbey would seem to indicate that she was buried there with her first husband, Henry I.

THE EVE OF MARY TUDOR’S CORONATION:

On the 30th of September 1553, Mary Tudor emerged from the Tower to begin her procession through London. Her journey began at 3’o clock in the afternoon. She was greeted with cheers from the thousands of people lining to see their new monarch. With her were her sister and her stepmother, the Ladies Elizabeth and Anne of Cleves, and her cousin, Margaret Douglas, the Countess of Lennox. The Queen’s messenger came out first, followed by trumpeters, esquires of the body, the new Knights of the Bath who’d been invested the day before, heralds, bannerets, members of the Royal Council, Garter knights, and the rest of the nobility. These numbered about five hundred. The nobles were dressed for the occasion, wearing gold and silver, and on their mounts too “which caused great admiration, not more by the richness of the substance than by the novelty and elegance of the device.”

The ambassadors were also dressed for the occasion, and lined up behind the nobles; each of them were accompanied by a lord of the Privy Council. (The French ambassador for example rode alongside Paget, the Imperial Ambassador was accompanied by Lord Clinton. Renard and others rode with Lord Cobham). Other foreigners included the merchants, the Italian ones for example wore “suits of black velvet lined, beautifully trimmed with many points of gold and garnished all around with embroidery of more than a palm in width.” Spanish cavaliers (four in total) followed “attired in cloaks of mulberry colored velvet lined with cloth of silver, with a very fine fringe of gold all about.” Then came the heraldic symbols being carried by her courtiers. The Earl of Sussex, the chief server, carried her hat and cloak then “two ancient knights with old-fashioned hats, powdered on their heads, disguised,” which recalled the people of their country’s old glory when they held Normandy and Guienne. The Chancellor, the Lord Mayor carried the golden scepter, and finally the Earl of Arundel who carried Mary’s sword.

And then came the person for whom they were all cheering and were eager to see, the Queen-to-be herself, Mary Tudor. Coming out in a chariot “open on all sides save for the canopy, entirely covered with gold and horses trapped with gold.”

Linda Porter in her biography of Mary, writes that “she was a small but unmistakably superb figure”. Mary wore a “Gown of purple velvet, furred with powdered ermines, having on her head a caul of cloth of tinsel, beset with pearl and stone, and above the same upon her head a round circlet of gold, beset so richly with precious stone that the value thereof was inestimable.”

Purple was the color of royalty. Mary was the first female King in English history. She knew the power of imagery, so she made sure that her coronation was something that people would always remember. And on the eve of her coronation she spared no expense. One of the things that must also be said about this rich display of imagery is how the queen wanted to present herself to the people. Women in power were still an oddity. Even though her maternal grandmother, the indomitable Isabella Trastamara, had been a Queen in her own right in Castile; England never had such experience. The closest thing to a Queen Regnant they had had been in Matilda FitzEmpress and that ended in disaster. For many years her image was carried through the mud and it wasn’t until she was relegated to the position of King’s mother, and religious matron that she finally got the respect from her English peers. Mary was threading on very dangerous grounds. She knew that if she rode on horseback, as many kings had done before her, she would open the door to more criticism. So she opted for a middle path. One where she would be relegated to the image of queen consort, wearing her hair loose to symbolize her virginity, and ride on litters or carriages, but also one where she would make it clear that she was sovereign of her reign and her authority could not be challenged. Opting for color purple reaffirmed this.

Behind the Queen was her ladies, the Marchioness of Exeter, the Duchess of Norfolk, the Countess of Arudnel, among others which included her sister and stepmother. They were granted a special place, and as members of the royal family (especially Elizabeth) they were treated with great respect. Elizabeth’s new clothes were courtesy of her sister, she had sent her a lot of gifts and gowns so she could pick and choose what she wanted. She and Anne of Cleves both wore cloth of silver that matched the silver trappings of their carriage. Mary had not seen her sister in a long time and she probably wanted to re-establish the bond the two sisters had shared when Bess was a kid, but time –as the motto that Mary would adopt- would reveal to the new Queen, that there was no going back.

As her progress passed through many streets, she was greeted with pageants, salutations (one where a girl dressed as a woman was held up by two men sitting up in a chair so she could greet the queen), and acrobatics.

“The procession paused at Fenchchurh Street to see a costly pageant presented by the Genoese merchants –a triumphal arch inscribed with verses celebrating Mary’s accession, flanked by four great giants. At Gracechurch corner the Hanseatic merchants had set up an artificial mount and a little fountain spouting wine; by some mechanism a man “flew down from the top of the pageant as she rode by.” The most elaborate and flattering of the representations was that of the Florentines, who saluted Mary as “liberator of her country,” and pointedly compared her to the Hebrew heroine Judith who by beheading the tyrant Holofernes delivered her people from the threat of slavery. Holorfernes they meant Dudley, whose beheaded was still a recent memory. Mary was also compared to Pallas Athena, and an inscription told how her fame was so great it reached the stars … At the conduit in Cornhill was “a very pretty pageant made very gorgeously” in which three little girls dressed as women took the parts of Grace, Virtue and Nature. Grace wore a crown and carried a scepter, and when Mary rode by all three children “kneeled down, and everyone of them sang certain verses of gratifying the queen.”” (Erickson)

Once she reached St. Paul’s churchyard, she was greeted with more spectacle. Sir John Heywood who had praised her in the past, sat under a vine and delivered an oration in Latin and English that celebrated her upcoming coronation. There were also a choir of men and boys that sang for her, and then a pageant where children carried burning tapers “made of most sweet perfumes.”

After these ended, Mary called all her councilors and addressed them in a solemn manner:

“Sinking on her knees before them, she spoke at length of her coming to the throne, of the duties of kings and queens, her intention to acquit herself of the task God had been pleased to lay on her to His greater glory and service, to the public good and all her subjects’ benefit. She had entrusted her affairs and person, she said, to them, and wished to adjure them to do their duty as they were bound by their oaths; and she appealed especially to her Lord High Chancellor [Gardiner[, reminding him that he had the right of administration of justice on his conscience. Her councilors were so deeply moved that not a single one refrained from tears. No one knew how to answer, amazed as they were by this humble and lowly discourse, so unlike anything ever heard before in England, and by the queen’s great goodness and integrity.”

This was a great contrast to their previous masters who had been extremely strict and straight forward. Mary was all of these things, but she also knew how to put a show, having learned from experience and observing many great women in their position behave with dignity and grace (most notoriously her mother, and no doubt the stories she must’ve heard from her about her grandmother Isabella, and her late governess, the Countess of Salisbury). She had been preparing for this role all her life. As Leanda de Lisle writes in her latest biography on the Tudors, she was “a warrior queen, established by God, by blood and by law” and she wasn’t going to disappoint. While she appeared merciful on the outside, she would prove to be just as firm as her ancestors.

Sources:

·         The Myth of Bloody Mary by Linda Porter

·         Tudor. Passion. Manipulation. Murder: The Story of England’s Most Notorious Royal Family by Leanda de Lisle

·         On this day in Tudor History by Claire Ridgway

·         Bloody Mary by Carolly Erickson

·         Mary Tudor: England’s First Queen by Anna Whitelock

Richards on Tumblr

Inspired by this

Richard I - would write poetry in Occitan, have long discussions on military strategy and fortifications, reblog pictures of the Holy Land and everything his mother blogged; would troll Philip II Augustus mercilessly

Berengaria of Navarre (his queen) - not on Tumblr; did she even really exist? ;p

Richard, earl of Cornwall - in his younger days he trolled his elder brother Henry III but as the two got older, Richard started to give Henry supportive reblogs; would give financial advice (most of which says “let your brother, the king, pay for your stuff”); carries on extensive conversations with the German electors and compliments them endlessly, all while making empty promises

Richard II - follows all the literary and art blogs and reblogs every image or quote that is about him (or might be about him); reblogs everything Robert de Vere posts, without fail; makes endless posts about saints, especially ones who are kings or have ties to English history (Edward the Confessor is his absolute favorite); frequently gets into arguments with people (including the Archbishop of Canterbury, earl of Arundel, city of London, and Henry Bolingbroke - his annoying cousin)

Anne of Bohemia - makes posts in multiple languages, in particular Czech and German; reblogs numerous pictures of fashionable hats and shoes; closely follows her husband’s blog and smooths over anything offensive Richard says, does, or threatens to do

Isabella of France - really shouldn’t be on Tumblr since she’s not even 11 yet; mainly posts pictures of kittens, puppies, and ponies; often reblogs pictures of manuscripts, dresses, jewelry, and toys that she tags “#richard I want this”

Richard III - blog shows a marked interest in boars; devoted follower of the city of York’s blog; posts pictures of cool places in northern England and labels them “North Rulez;” slavishly reblogs what his big bro Edward posts (except when Ned’s posts are NSFW)

Anne Neville - makes lots of posts extolling the Beauchamp and Neville families; gives lots of advice on how to be a good duchess and keep a huge household in ship-shape; posts excessive pictures of her only son Edward being cute

Anne [of Bohemia] had spend much of he marriage traveling at her husband’s side. They were rarely separated, and whatever their private relationship may have been, Richard [King Richard II] loved her. She died at Sheen on 7 June 1394, aged just 27, and Richard ordered that the palace to which he had devoted so much attention be ripped down. He vowed that for a year he would enter no building except a church in which he he had spent time with the Queen. Anne’s funeral was delayed for two months while Richard prepared in characteristically grand style, ordering a hundred wax torches from Flanders. On 3 August, her body was carried from Sheen to St.Paul’s and then to Westminster Abbey. Determined that the ceremony should be fully attended, Richard had summoned the magnates to London for 29 July, but Richard FitzAlan, the Earl of Arundel, still managed to arrive late and the overwrought King hit him so hard that he fell bleeding to the ground.
—  Queens Consort. England’s Medieval Queens by Lisa Hilton

Mary (I) Tudor, Queen of England, France and Ireland:

On Sunday, the 1st of October, Mary Tudor was crowned Queen of England at Westminster Abbey. She was the first female King in English history. Her day began early when she departed from the Tower of London, she was accompanied by her ladies and other nobles. As before, there were elements that were identified with the coronation for queen consorts, but also others that were of Kings. Instead of riding a litter as queen consorts had done, she chose to walk barefoot to the Abbey. She dressed splendidly for the occasion, wearing “parliament robes of crimson velvet under a rich canopy borne by the five barons of the cinque ports” in addition to having her hair loose with a circlet of gold around her head.

Following her where her ladies and gentlemen (by two) which included knights, aldermen, the French and Latin secretaries, councilors, the knights of the Garter, and those carrying the three swords which represented Spiritual and Temporal Justice, and Mercy. The sword of state was carried by Edward Courtenay (who’d recently been ennobled as the Earl of Devonshire), the Duke of Norfolk carried the crown, the Marques of Winchester carried the orb, and finally the Earl of Arundel carried the scepter. Mary’s train was carried by the Duchess of Norfolk who was assisted by Sir John Gage. Behind her were her sister and stepmother, the ladies Elizabeth and Anne of Cleves.

When she reached the Abbey, she would not have been surprised to find it decorated with heraldic symbols and popular Tudor images. The pulpit was covered in rest worsted, with the porch of Westminster Hall decorated with blue cloth. In addition, there was the royal chair which was covered in damask gold with the three lions and the fleur-de-lis representing the crowns of England and France –the latter which England still lay claim too and enabled Mary to add to her title of Queen of France as well.

“The porch of Westminster Hall was decorated with blue cloth […] There was at the center of the Abbey a raised walkway that led to the altar, the pulpit was covered with red and the stage royal from the choir to the high altar covered with cloth of gold and strewn with cushions of the same material … The chair was backed with pillars, ‘whereon stood two lions of gold and in the midst of a turret with a fleur-de-lys of gold … Though some of the order of the service reflected changes introduced in 1547, for Edward VI’s coronation, and the same ornaments were carried.” (Porter)

As she reached the Abbey, she first met with the bishops and the chaplains at the private chapel, to be censed and sprinkled with holy water. Later she walked behind the Duke of Noroflk, the Marques of Winchester and the Earl of Arundel who still carrying the heraldic symbols, led her to the throne.

Stephen Gardiner then turned to the crowds and gave the following announcement:


“Sirs, here present is Mary, rightful and undoubted inheritrix by the laws of God and man the crown and royal dignity of this real of England, France, Ireland, where upon you shall understand that this day is appointed by all the Peers of this land for the consecration, inunction and coronation of the said most excellent Princess Mary; will you serve at this time, and give your wills and assent to the same consecration, inunction, and coronation?”

To which everyone shouted “joyfully Yea, yea,” followed by “God save Queen Mary!”

Mary then made an offering to the altar and following with ancient tradition, she prostrated herself before it on cushions while prayers were being said for her. Then she rose and listened to the sermon from the Bishop of Chichester which had to do with obeisance to kings.

Then came the moment of truth. The moment that Mary had anxiously been waiting –and preparing- for all her life. The actual coronation. Still lying before the altar, she took the sacrament and said her oaths, and listened to the rest of the prayers. Then she went behind a screen at the left of the altar to make her first change of clothing. She was helped by some of her ladies. After she emerged she was anointed with the holy oils (by Gardiner) on her breasts, shoulders and forehead.

“Because so much depended on her anointing Mary had taken special care to ensure the validity of the ritual. She feared that the oils to be found in England were tainted as a result of the ecclesiastical censures brought against the nation by the pope many years earlier.” (Erickson)

This is true. Mary went above and beyond to make sure everything was perfect. So the oils were brought from Flanders. Judith M. Richards in her journal article about “Gendering the Tudor Monarchy” about Mary Tudor, discusses a lot of the issues regarding the first Queen of England’s coronation. Mary wanted to present herself as more than just a King, she wanted people to perceive her as both a woman and a king. Elizabeth would follow this model many years later when she addressed the troops at Tilbury in 1588 when she was at war with Spain. England never had a queen, and the concept of a female monarch was still very alien to many, even those that accepted Mary. So she had to thread very carefully. And one way she could be accepted without eliciting much criticism was by presenting herself as the paragon of virtue and morality (wearing her hair down and with a circlet as queen consorts traditionally wore) while at the same time, showing herself as ordained by god like monarchs before her. So here was a woman who was took the role of mother and guardian of her country, but also as an enforcer. And she made sure that people remembered this glorious day by having pamphlets be printed and distributed across Europe. (Not for nothing, her sister would take on the same roles, when on the eve of her coronation she would be compared to biblical figures like Esther and Deborah who were famous for upholding the moral values and preserving their people’s faith).

With a canopy being held over her head, she was given privacy to change back into her velvet robes. She then sat on the royal chair and was given the spurs and swords, had the ring placed on her finger then had the crown of Edward the Confessor placed on her head, followed by the Imperial crown and then another crown that was especially made for her.

Her subjects, including Gardiner and some of the courtiers that had carried the canopy and the heraldic symbols for her, knelt before their new monarch and swore their allegiance to her.  With the ceremony at an end the Te Deums being sung, Mary made her final offering to the Abbey (still carrying the orb and the two scepters of king and queen in her two hands) before departing for the state dinner that awaited her at Westminster Hall.

Feeling triumphant, Mary didn’t let the exhaustion win her over. Her sister and her stepmother were her guests of honor, seated next to her, basking in the attention and enjoying the spectacle that was being played out before them. There were some (like Renard) who didn’t like the Queen trusting Elizabeth with such honors, but Mary didn’t pay any attention to them. She was after all the daughter of a King and now the sister to the Queen, and she and her stepmother were awarded the highest positions that any man or woman could wish for. No other lady sat next to the queen or rode in a chariot that outranked the others. But there was a big difference between the sisters that Mary wouldn’t find out (or admit to it) until much later when the two became bitter rivals. For now though, she had no cause to worry. This was her moment and as far as she was concerned, it was meant to last.

Sources:

The Myth of Bloody Mary by Linda Porter

Mary Tudor: England’s First Queen by Anna Whitelock

On this day in Tudor History by Claire Ridgway

Bloody Mary by Carolly Erickson

Mary Tudor by David Loades

Gendering the Tudor Monarchy: Mary Tudor as “sole queen” by Judith M. Richards (journal article)

royallysouthernsportsloving  asked:

I know this is quite random, but do you know anything about the Earl of Arundel? I believe it's the same peerage (I think that's the right word) as the Duke of Norfolk? I found out one of my great grandfathers was the 14th Earl of Arundel, so I'm curious about the title and that part of my family.

All correct, the peerage is with the Duke of Norfolk now - the Heir apparent (oldest son) uses that title. The Duke also holds the title Earl of Surrey. 

It was created in 1138, for the Norman baron Sir William d'Aubigny. Until the mid-13th century, the earls were also frequently known as Earl of Sussex, until this title fell into disuse. 

At about the same time, the earldom fell to the originally Breton FitzAlan Family, a younger branch of which went on to become the Stuart Family, (yes THAT Stuart family who later ruled Scotland and then England too until Queen Anne’s death)

A tradition arose that the holder of Arundel Castle should automatically be Earl of Arundel, and this was formally confirmed by King Henry VI

Your family home http://www.arundelcastle.org/

In his 1834 book on the Earls of Arundel, M. A. Tierney (chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk) maintains that the first incarnation of the earldom was with the House of Montgomery. Roger of Montgomery, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury was one of William the Conqueror’s top generals, and William bestowed on him, amongst several hundred other manors, the property at Arundel, with the charge to fortify it with a castle. Montgomery is believed to have built the motte that survives to this day, and is thought to have built a wooden keep on it, overlooking the river Arun. Montgomery and two of his sons are counted by many as being the first incarnation of the earldom, but are often not counted amongst the earls.

In 1580 the 12th Earl, and last FitzAlan to hold the title, died without a male heir.His daughter Mary FitzAlan had married the attainted 4th Duke of Norfolk, and the title now passed to their son, Philip Howard and the title was only restored to his son following the accession of King James I.The 5th Earl of Arundel, the 5th Howard to hold the title, was restored to the principal Howard title of Duke of Norfolk in 1660 and the title has descended with that Duchy ever since.

In 1842, by Royal Warrant, Henry Howard, 14th Duke of Norfolk and 13th Earl of Arundel, and his siblings, assumed the surname FitzAlan-Howard, used by the family line to the present day

If your Ancestor was the 14th Earl then he was during the 2nd creation of the title. He will be classed as both the 7th as well as the 14th Earl

The current Earl, the son of the current Duke of Norfolk, is  Henry Fitzalan-Howard, Earl of Arundel. He is 27 and a racing driver and someone I have featured on my blog before.

Finally, you family crest

2

An Arundel Tomb

by Philip Larkin

Side by side, their faces blurred,

The earl and countess lie in stone

Their proper habits vaguely shown

As jointed armour, stiffened pleat,

And that faint hint of the absurd -

The little dogs under their feet.

Such plainess of the pre-baroque

Hardly involves the eye, until

It meets his left-hand gauntlet, still

Unclasped empty in the other; and

One sees, with a sharp tender shock,

His hand withdrawn, holding her hand.

They would not think to lie so long.

Such faithfulness in effigy

Was just a detail friends could see:

A sculptor’s sweet commissiones grace

Thrown off in helping to prolong

The Latin names around the base.

They would not guess how early in

Their supine stationary voyage

The air would change to soundless damage,

Turn the old tenantry away;

How soon succeeding eyes begin

To look, not read. Rigidly they

Persisted, linked, through lengths and breadths

Of time. Snow fell, undated. Light

Each summer thronged the grass. A bright

Litter of birdcalls strewed the same

Bone-riddled ground. And up the paths

The endless altered people came,

Washing at their identity.

Now, helpless in the hollow of

An unarmorial age, a trough

Of smoke in slow suspended skeins

Above their scrap of history,

Only an attitude remains:

Time has transformed them into

Untruth. The stone fidelity

They hardly meant has come to be

Their final blazon, and to prove

Our almost-instinct almost true:

What will survive of us is love.