The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (151 page)

³⁶
The point is worth making that, in public at any rate, Catherine was bound to suspect their genuineness, because one of the central planks of her defence was that she could never receive a fair trial in England.

³⁷
Also Warham, Tunstall, Veysey, George de Athequa bishop of Llandaff, Robert Shorton; and this is not a complete list; see Pocock, ii, pp.432, 612 for their signatures; also Paul,
Catherine of Aragon
, pp.92 ff.

³⁸
Ehses, p.60 in the second of two interviews he and Campeggio had with Catherine in Oct. 1528.

³⁹
Mattingly,
Catherine of Aragon
, p.198, though this rather contradicts his earlier assessment that she could never bring herself to blame Henry for anything; but then Catherine probably had contradictory feelings; see ibid, p.179.

⁴⁰
Sp. Cal
., iii (ii), p.841; see also Hall, p.755; for Wolsey being aware of Catherine’s view of his part in the matter see
St. P
, i, p.200 (
LP
, iv, 3231).

⁴¹
They include Anne’s sister, Mary Boleyn, and Elizabeth Blount.

⁴²
For a possible chronology placing the begining of the courtship in the spring of 1526 see Ives,
Anne Boleyn
, pp.108-9; see also Scarisbrick,
Henry
VIII
, pp.147-9.

⁴³
Ives,
Anne Boleyn
, pp.49-53. It needs to be consulted on all matters relating to Anne though on particular episodes I find myself often in disagreement and it is especially good on her early life. But Friedmann still remains very useful.

⁴⁴
Ven. Cal
., ii, p.248, quoted in Mattingly,
Catherine of Aragon
, p.132.

⁴⁵
Parmiter, pp.8-9 for a useful chronology of her miscarriages and childbearing.

⁴⁶
It was quite usual practice for kings and noblemen to acknowledge illegitimate sons: two contemporary examples would be Charles Somerset, created earl of Worcester, an illegitimate son of Henry Beaufort, 2nd duke of Somerset, and Arthur Plantagenet, created Viscount Lisle, an illegitimate son of Edward IV. It is therefore dangerous to read too much significance into Henry Fitzroy’s elevation – it is not in itself evidence for concern for the lack of a male heir.

⁴⁷
Murphy, p.28 on the scholarly support for this interpretation of Leviticus.

⁴⁸
Hall, pp.754-5; see also
LP
, iv, 3913, 4977-8, 5050, 5377 for important statements of the king’s position in which the lack of a male heir could have been used but was not, concern about the succession being expressed, as in Henry’s speech, in connection with Mary’s legitimacy.

⁴⁹
LP
, iv, pp.1398, 1400.

⁵⁰
St. P
, i, p.199 (
LP
, iv, 3231).

⁵¹
LP
, iv, 4942; this is the French ambassador’s account of Henry’s speech.

⁵²
Inter alia LP
, iv, 3913; Wolsey’s instructions for the important Fox, Gardiner mission to Rome in Feb. 1528; also
LP
, iv, 5156, instructions to English envoys with the emperor in Jan. 1529, though in Aug. 1527 the Tarbes version had been used with him; see
LP
, iv, 3327.

⁵³
Ehses,
Romische Quartalschrift
, xiv, p.267, translated by R. Roberts.

⁵⁴
Cavendish, p.74-5.

⁵⁵
See p.502, n.5.

⁵⁶
LP
, iv, 3217.

⁵⁷
Inter alia
Elton,
Reform and Renewal
, p.105; Parmiter, pp.18-24; Scarisbrick,
Henry
VIII
, pp.161-2.

⁵⁸
Pocock, i, p.11 (
LP
, iv, 3302).

⁵⁹
Sp. Cal
., iii (ii), p.276.

⁶⁰
Sp. Cal
., iii (ii), pp.193-4.

⁶¹
St. P
, i, pp.270-1 (
LP
, iv, 3400).

⁶²
Pocock, i, p.144 (
LP
, iv, 4251).

⁶³
LP
, iv, 3641; for the Latin original see Burnet, iv, pp.19-33.

⁶⁴
LP
, iv, 3641.

⁶⁵
Cavendish, pp.74-5.

⁶⁶
Cavendish, p.79.

⁶⁷
Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, p.69, translated by R. Roberts.

⁶⁸
LP
, iv, 5038 made in an interview with England’s envoy, John Casale, in which Clement showed the greatest agitation.

⁶⁹
LP
, iv, 3802 for the suggestion; Pocock, i, p.114 (
LP
, iv, 4120) for the English envoys’ advice.

⁷⁰
Ehses,
Römische Quartalschrift
, xiv, pp.259-60 for this, based on his interpretation of Campeggio’s letter to Salviati of 18 Feb. 1529; see ibid, p.266.

⁷¹
For these developments see especially H.A. Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
, pp.5-14;
Traditio
, xxiii.

⁷²
Theiner, p.566 (
LP
, iv, 5994); see also H.A. Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
, pp.139-40.

⁷³
This the central argument of V. Murphy’s work, now essential reading for the textual history of the divorce, but see especially Murphy, pp.70 ff. I am most grateful to her for an early look at her thesis, now more readily available in her introduction to Surtz and Murphy.

⁷⁴
St. P
, i, pp.194-5 (
LP
, iv, 3217) Wolsey to Henry, 1 July 1527.

⁷⁵
St. P
, i, pp.198-201 (
LP
, iv, 3231).

⁷⁶
Parmiter, p.44 for a brief history and definition of a decretal commission.

⁷⁷
For convincing arguments that the decretal commission granted in June 1528 had in effect been drawn up by Wolsey see Thurston, pp.639-40; for Wolsey’s drafts see H.A. Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
p.57, n.4.

⁷⁸
See especially Thurston, pp.643-4.

⁷⁹
A fact acknowledged in Clement’s pollicitation, which stated that he had issued the decretal commission in order to ‘clearly certify to the said King Henry our desire to administer speedy justice … and render it more secure against a labyrinth of judicial proceedings’. Since the decretal commission itself was destroyed, the pollicitation is an essential source for what it contained.

⁸⁰
Thurston, p.642.

⁸¹
St. P
, i, pp.194-5 (
LP
, iv, 3217).

⁸²
Central to Scarisbrick’s discussion of Wolsey’s handling of the divorce, but see especially
Henry
VIII
, pp.194-7. In rejecting it, I am very dependent on the arguments in H.A. Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
, pp.30-1, 109, 114-18; 129-31, 137-8, 146-7, 152-6. One of the most telling points he makes is that much more use was made of the impediment of public honesty than Scarisbrick allowed, though only in situations in which other lines were proving unsuccessful.

⁸³
Rymer, xiii, p.81; see also H.A. Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
, p.115.

⁸⁴
See
inter alia
Ives,
Anne Boleyn
, p.140, but even Scarisbrick’s comment in
Henry
VIII
, p.227, that ‘at Blackfriars, the king’s case had been going badly, for reasons that are not clear’, implies that the expectation was that it would go well.

⁸⁵
LP
, iv, 5523, 5575 for Wolsey’s instructions of 7 and 20 May.

⁸⁶
In suggesting this I have again relied heavily on H.A. Kelly’s work; see
Matrimonial Trials
, pp.75 ff. which needs to be consulted, especially for a detailed discussion of the sources; but see also V. Murphy’s introduction to Surtz and Murphy.

⁸⁷
A PS to Campeggio’s letter of 21 June in Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, pp.107-10, translated in Gairdner,
EHR
, xii, pp.249-52 the PS is not in
LP
. The treatment of all Campeggio’s letters in
LP
needs to be checked with Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
.

⁸⁸
Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, p.120 (
LP
, iv, 5775), though not a calendar of the complete letter.

⁸⁹
Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, pp.116-17 (
LP
, iv, 5732), though a letter by Campeggio’s secretary, not, as stated in
LP
, by Campeggio). For du Bellay’s account see
LP
, iv, 5741.

⁹⁰
Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, pp.117-18.

⁹¹
H.A. Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
, p.97.

⁹²
Cavendish, p.85.

⁹³
LP
, iv, app.21.

⁹⁴
Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, pp.58-9.

⁹⁵
Cavendish, p.81; see also Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, pp.108-9.

⁹⁶
LP
, iv, 4685 for Wolsey’s assertion.

⁹⁷
Ehses,
Römische Dokumente
, p.59 said by Catherine to Campeggio when taking confession.

⁹⁸
LP
, iv, 5774, 5778, 5783, 5791; see also Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
, pp.112 ff.

⁹⁹
Scarisbrick,
Henry
VIII
, p.188, n.3. In addition to the references cited there see
Sp. Cal
.,
F.S.
, p.450. And in October 1529 Chapuys reported Henry allowing Catherine’s claim, admittedly only in order to convince her that the marriage would still be invalid because the original dispensation had made no reference to public honesty, an argument that interestingly Chapuys dismissed as being as thin as ‘
la glace d’une nuit
’; see
Sp. Cal
., iv (i), p.275.

¹⁰⁰
Catherine’s challenge was made in her mandate to the pope of 10 May 1529 and passed on to Henry in Clement’s letter of 7 Oct. 1529; see
LP
, iv, 5994. See also H.A. Kelly,
Matrimonial Trials
, pp.135-47.